Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOK c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  Article 6 requires judgments of tribunals adequately to state the reasons on which they are based, but it does not go so far as to require a detailed answer to every argument put forward; nor is the European Court called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (see for example the Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, § 61).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill which later became the Act enacting the above provisions makes it clear that the intention was to provide a procedure complying with the requirements set out by the Court in its Kostovski v. the Netherlands judgment of 20 November 1989 (Series A no. 166) and its Windisch v. Austria judgment of 27 September 1990 (Series A no. 186).
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill which later became the Act enacting the above provisions makes it clear that the intention was to provide a procedure complying with the requirements set out by the Court in its Kostovski v. the Netherlands judgment of 20 November 1989 (Series A no. 166) and its Windisch v. Austria judgment of 27 September 1990 (Series A no. 186).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  The Court has also had regard to its holdings in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court that Aricle 6 § 3 (d) only required the possibility to cross-examine such witnesses in situations where this testimony played a main or decisive role in securing the conviction (see the Delta v. France judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 37; the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 28; the Artner v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, §§ 22-24; and the Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, § 44).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  The Court has also had regard to its holdings in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court that Aricle 6 § 3 (d) only required the possibility to cross-examine such witnesses in situations where this testimony played a main or decisive role in securing the conviction (see the Delta v. France judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 37; the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 28; the Artner v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, §§ 22-24; and the Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, § 44).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  The Court is of the opinion that the mere reference, in general terms, to the entirety of the submissions made at first instance was too vague to draw the Court of Appeal's attention directly to this matter (cf. the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, § 35).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  The Court has also had regard to its holdings in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court that Aricle 6 § 3 (d) only required the possibility to cross-examine such witnesses in situations where this testimony played a main or decisive role in securing the conviction (see the Delta v. France judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 37; the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 28; the Artner v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, §§ 22-24; and the Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, § 44).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence; 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 the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49).

• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Insbesondere bezüglich der Verwertung der Angaben anonymer Zeugen als Beweismittel weist der Gerichtshof darauf hin, dass der Grundsatz eines fairen Verfahrens auch verlangt, dass in geeigneten Fällen die Interessen der Verteidigung und die Interessen der aussagenden Zeugen oder Opfer, besonders was ihr nach Artikel 8 der Konvention garantiertes Recht auf Leben und Freiheit angeht, gegeneinander abgewogen werden müssen (…siehe u. a. Van Mechelen, a.a.O., S. 711, Nr. 53; Kok ./. die Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43149/98, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 56440/15

  SNIJDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  To the contrary, based on the material before it the Court finds that the decision of the Regional Court sitting in chambers to grant X the status of threatened witness on account of his or her fear of reprisals was based on objective grounds and supported by evidence and thus cannot be considered arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see also Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 71, Reports 1996 II; Kok v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43149/98, ECHR 2000-VI; Pesukic v. Switzerland, cited above, § 46; and Breijer v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 41596/13, § 33, 3 July 2018).

  That procedure, as applied in Kok v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 43149/98, ECHR 2000-VI), was held to respect sufficiently the rights of the defence in that case.

  [9] Compare Kok v. the Netherlands, no. 43149/98, 28 August 1998, not a judgment but a de plano Chamber decision of inadmissibility, which again represented a setback to the Court's correct approach regarding the testimony of anonymous witnesses, since the Court concluded therein that the procedure followed approximated, as closely as was possible in the circumstances, the hearing of a witness in open court and that, therefore, the rights of the defence were sufficiently respected.

• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  La Cour a même admis que, pour rejeter un recours, une cour d'appel peut en principe se contenter d'entériner les motifs figurant dans la décision rendue par la juridiction inférieure (Kok c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 43149/98, CEDH 2000-VI).

 
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 50053/16

  Keine Verletzung von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren) durch …

  November 2014; García Ruiz ./. Spanien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30544/96, Rdnr. 26, ECHR 1999 I; Kok ./. die Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43149/98, 4. Juli 2000; und Ruiz Torija ./. Spanien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 18390/91, Rdnr. 29, 9.
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  However, it can be concluded from the case-law of the Court on the use of evidence obtained from anonymous witnesses that, where the defence - because of measures taken to protect vulnerable witnesses - is confronted with difficulties which criminal proceedings normally should not involve, the resulting handicaps for the defence should be sufficiently counterbalanced by the proceedings followed by the judicial authorities (see Doorson, cited above, p. 471, § 72; Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 712, § 54; and Kok v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43149/98, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 55385/14

  BAYDAR v. THE NETHERLANDS

  That is why the question of whether or not a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons - deriving from Article 6 of the Convention - can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Borovská and Forrai v. Slovakia, no. 48554/10, § 57, 25 November 2014; García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I; Kok v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43149/98, 4 July 2000; and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, no. 18390/91, § 29, 9 December 1994).
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 21104/06

  KAYNAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention oblige les tribunaux à motiver leurs décisions, mais qu'il ne peut se comprendre comme exigeant une réponse détaillée à chaque argument (Kok c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 43149/98, CEDH 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Enfin, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle l'article 6 n'exige pas que soit motivée en détail une décision par laquelle une juridiction de recours, se fondant sur une disposition légale spécifique, écarte un recours comme dépourvu de chance de succès (Société anonyme Immeuble Groupe Kosser c. France (déc.), précitée ; Latournerie c. France (déc.), précitée ; voir également mutatis mutandis, Kok c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 43149/98, CEDH 2000-VI, 4 juillet 2000).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Un constat de non-violation s'impose lorsque le témoin n'ayant pas fait l'objet d'un interrogatoire contradictoire n'est pas un témoin-clé, c'est-à-dire lorsque « la condamnation de l'accusé n'est pas fondée uniquement ou dans une mesure déterminante'sur la déposition de celui-ci (voir Gossa c. Pologne, no 47986/99, § 63, 9 janvier 2007 ; A.M. c. Italie, no 37019/97, § 25, CEDH 1999-IX ; Saïdi c. France, 20 septembre 1993, §§ 43-44, série A no 261-C ; voir aussi la jurisprudence sur les « témoins anonymes ", notamment Kok c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 43149/98, CEDH 2000-VI ; et, a contrario, Unterpertinger c. Autriche, 24 novembre 1986, §§ 28-33, série A no 110).
• EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  VISSER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In its decision on the admissibility of application no. 43149/98 (Kok v. the Netherlands, 4.7.2000, to be reported in ECHR 2000-VI), the Court indicated that, when assessing whether the procedures followed in the questioning of an anonymous witness had been sufficient to counterbalance the difficulties caused to the defence, due weight had to be given to the extent to which the anonymous testimony had been decisive in convicting the applicant.
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 15065/05

  D. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 35811/97

  KOLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 2777/10

  EHRMANN ET SCI VHI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 23280/09

  SARP KURAY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39339/98

  M.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 49640/07

  D.Y.S. c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 25585/02

  EMEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 25585/02

  EMEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 28487/06

  MARGALET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 34371/07

  PAPACHRISTOFOROU v. CYPRUS (N° III)
• EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 48334/99

  POLMAN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 26437/04

  ORHAN ÇAÇAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 30389/03

  NESTEROV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12769/02

  OSMANAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE