Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d No violation of Art. 34 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined at some stage of the proceedings, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Unterpertinger v. Austria, 24 November 1986, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 110; Saïdi v. France 20 September 1993, §§ 43-44, Series A no. 261-C; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  As regards the findings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands, no. 54789/00, § 82, 10 November 2005).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  Nothing in the case file suggests that S.'s statement was recorded on video so that the applicant and the trial court could observe his demeanour under questioning and thus form its own impression of his reliability (see, by contrast, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-...).

 
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 54789/00

  BOCOS-CUESTA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  As regards the findings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands, no. 54789/00, § 82, 10 November 2005).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  In the event that the impossibility of examining the witnesses or having them examined is due to the fact that they are absent or otherwise missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 43, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 18885/04

  KASTE AND MATHISEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  The Court also considers that while the appearance of a witness is a prerequisite for the defence's opportunities to confront this witness, there must also be an adequate opportunity to question him or her (see Kaste and Mathisen v. Norway, nos. 18885/04 and 21166/04, § 47, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  If the defendant has been given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the statements, their admission in evidence will not in itself contravene Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see, for instance, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 117, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  MAKEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  S.'s presence was of crucial importance to enable the court to make an effective assessment of his demeanour and of the reliability of his deposition (see Hulki Günes v. Turkey, no. 28490/95, § 92, ECHR 2003-VII (extracts); Vladimir Romanov, cited above, § 105; and Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, §§ 41-42 and 45, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  In view of the above, the pre-trial confrontation procedure in the present case was not an appropriate substitute for the examination of the co-accused in open court (see, mutatis mutandis, Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 28, Series A no. 186).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  As a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statements or at a later stage (see Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-III, Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has, however, accepted that compliance by a representative with certain formal requirements might be necessary before obtaining access to a detainee, for instance for security reasons or in order to prevent collusion or some action to pervert the course of the investigation or justice (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, § 96, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court has, however, accepted that compliance by a representative with certain formal requirements might be necessary before obtaining access to a detainee, for instance for security reasons or in order to prevent collusion or some other action to pervert the course of the investigation or justice (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, § 96, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05

  DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA

  Firstly, the Court reiterates that the very fact of the participation of an accused person in confrontation interviews with witnesses during the pre-trial stage cannot of itself strip him or her of the right to have those witnesses examined in court (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, §§ 79-81, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  HILAL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has, however, accepted that compliance by a representative with certain formal requirements might be necessary before obtaining access to a detainee, for instance for security reasons or in order to prevent collusion or perversion of the course of the investigation or justice (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, § 96, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 25406/08

  TOPALOGLU v. GEORGIA

  They testify without being under oath, that is, without any affirmation of the truth of their statements which could render them punishable for perjury for wilfully making untrue statements (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, § 75, 14 January 2010, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 102, 24 July 2008).