Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIELAJ v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  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, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, 27 February 2001; and Solakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).

  It is true that in many cases the Court has found a violation where statements, which the accused had not had an opportunity to challenge in the domestic court, have been the sole or decisive evidence (see for example Van Mechelen and Others, cited above, § 63; Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, 27 February 2001).

• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35556/05

  MAKUSZEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to afford the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution, the appropriateness of which it is not for the European Court to determine (see, in particular, Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005; and Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 40, 13 January 2009; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 28).

  In these circumstances, and having regard also to the fact that the Court has already examined similar complaints concerning the examination of cassation appeals in criminal proceedings by the Supreme Court and declared them manifestly ill-founded (Walczak v. Poland, referred to above, and Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; mutatis mutandis), the Court is of the view that the proceedings were not tainted with any procedural shortcomings which would have rendered them unfair.

• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  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 Van Mechelen and Others, cited above, p. 711, § 51, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49).

  Furthermore, 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, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, cited above, p. 711, § 51, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49).

 
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  The Court further reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of fair trial (Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  With respect to statements of witnesses who proved to be unavailable for questioning in the presence of the defendant or his counsel, the Court reiterates that paragraph 1 of Article 6, taken together with paragraph 3, requires the Contracting States to take positive steps so as to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII; and W.S. v. Poland, no. 21508/02, § 61, 19 June 2007).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to afford the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution, the appropriateness of which it is not for the European Court to determine (see, in particular, Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005; and Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 40, 13 January 2009; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 28).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 69116/01

  MAYALI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to afford the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution, the appropriateness of which it is not for the European Court to determine (see, in particular, Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005; and Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 40, 13 January 2009; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 28).
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to afford the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution, the appropriateness of which it is not for the European Court to determine (see, in particular, Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005; and Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 40, 13 January 2009; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 28).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23220/04

  A.L. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  A conviction should not be based either solely or to a decisive extent on statements which the defence has not been able to challenge (see A.L. v. Finland, no. 23220/04, § 37, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to afford the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution, the appropriateness of which it is not for the European Court to determine (see, in particular, Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005; and Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 40, 13 January 2009; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 28).

• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is not normally for the Court to determine the appropriateness of a decision to prosecute (see, mutatis mutandis, Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007; Bielaj v. Poland, no. 43643/04, § 56, 27 April 2010).