Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,5065
EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,5065)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.03.2014 - 58428/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,5065)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. März 2014 - 58428/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,5065)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,5065) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Adversarial trial Equality of arms) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

    Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren:

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).

    26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, must be further refined, based on the joint assessment of the following criteria: (1) the nature of the ground hindering the witness's presence at the trial hearing; (2) the kind of public authority before which the witness's prior testimony was given; (3) the presence or absence of the defence lawyer at that specific hearing; (4) the existence of other mechanisms to safeguard the defence's right to impugn the fairness of the gathering of testimony, the credibility of the witness and the reliability of his or her testimony; (5) the weight of the read-out testimony of the non-cross-examined witness in the trial court's judgment; and (6) the waiving of the right to cross-examine the absent witness.

  • EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 44069/98

    G.B. v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    On the other hand, the Court retains supervisory power in this field: in exceptional circumstances the need to obtain a second expert opinion on an important aspect of the case may be self-evident and the failure of the court to obtain expert evidence sought by the defence may make the trial unfair (see, for example, G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-X).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

    EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    The Court's case-law states that the prosecution must disclose to the defence "all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused" (see, amongst many other authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 36, Series A no. 247-B).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

    Brandstetter ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    It is the Court's well-established case-law that the defence must have the right to study and challenge not only an expert report as such, but also the credibility of those who prepared it, by direct questioning (see, amongst other authorities, Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 42, Series A no. 211; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, §§ 81-82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, § 158, 11 December 2008).
  • EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

    STOIMENOV v.

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

    GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    It is primarily for the national courts to decide whether a particular piece of evidence is formally admissible (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).
  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X; Al-Khawaja and Tahery, [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

    F.C.B. c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    The Court further reiterates that the right of the defence to examine witnesses and test other evidence introduced by the prosecution should be read in the light of the more general guarantee of adversarial proceedings enshrined in the concept of a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 (see, among many other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208 B; and Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277 A; Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, § 118).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 32432/96

    TALAT TUNÇ c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    The Court reiterates that Article 6 does not rule out a tacit waiver of one of the guarantees of a fair trial (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007).
  • EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

    Bönisch ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
    That being said, some of the Court's approaches to the personal examination of "witnesses" under Article 6 § 3 (d) are no doubt relevant in the context of examination of expert evidence and may be applied mutatis mutandis, with due regard to the difference in their status and role (see Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, § 29, Series A no. 92, with further references).
  • EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 9154/10

    Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Al-Khawaja-Test; Recht auf ein

    Dies umfasst gewöhnlich eine Prüfung sowohl der Bedeutung der nicht konfrontierten Aussagen für die Anklage sowie der Maßnahmen, die von den Justizbehörden getroffen werden, um die der Verteidigung verursachten Schwierigkeiten zu kompensieren (Gani./. Spanien, Nr. 61800/08, Rdnr. 41, 19. Februar 2013, mit zahlreichen Nachweisen; s. auch Fafrowicz./. Polen, Nr. 43609/07, Rdnrn. 58-63, 17. April 2012, Sellick und Sellick./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), Nr. 18743/06, Rdnrn. 54-55, 16. Oktober 2012, betreffend die Aussagen abwesender Zeugen, die als "wichtig" eingestuft wurden, Beggs./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Nr. 25133/06, Rdnrn. 156-159, 6. November 2012, betreffend die Aussage eines abwesenden Zeugen, die nur als eines von zahlreichen Indizienbeweisen eingestuft wurde, Stefancic./. Slowenien, Nr. 18027/05, Rdnrn. 42-47, 25. Oktober 2012, betreffend die Aussage eines abwesenden Zeugen, die als ein Faktor beschrieben wurde, auf den die Verurteilung des Beschwerdeführers gestützt war, und Garofolo./. Schweiz (Entsch.), Nr. 4380/09, Rdnrn. 52 und 56-57, 2. April 2013; siehe hingegen auch Matytsina./. Russland, Nr. 58428/10, Rdnrn. 164-165, 27. März 2014, und Horncastle u.a../. Vereinigtes Königreich, Nr. 4184/10, Rdnrn. 150-151, 16. Dezember 2014, wobei es sich um zwei Sachen handelt, in denen der Gerichtshof angesichts der geringen Bedeutung der Aussage des abwesenden Zeugen nicht ergründet hat, ob ausgleichende Faktoren vorlagen).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

    MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    [2] See K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, §§ 107-112, ECHR 2001-II (extracts); Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, §§ 228-233, ECHR 2010; and the joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque and Turkovic, joined to Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, 27 March 2014.
  • EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

    LETINCIC v. CROATIA

    In certain circumstances the refusal to allow further or an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Van Kück, cited above, § 55; and, mutatis mutandis, Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19

    GAGGL v. AUSTRIA

    In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014, and Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 66616/10

    KOHEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    The Court reiterates that the fact that an expert report was obtained without any involvement of the defence as such does not raise any issue under the Convention, provided that the defence subsequently had an opportunity to examine and challenge that report before the trial court (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 704, 25 July 2013, and Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 175, 27 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

    FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

    In certain circumstances, refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 38 et seq., 5 April 2007, and Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 76438/12

    CONSTANTINIDES c. GRÈCE

    Si le libellé de l'article 6 § 3 d) se réfère aux témoins et non pas aux experts, les garanties du paragraphe 3 constituent des éléments inhérents du droit à un procès équitable prévue au paragraphe 1 de l'article 6. La Cour a alors conclu que le droit de l'accusé d'interroger des experts est protégé par le principe général posé par l'article 6 § 1 et il est examiné sous l'angle de celui-ci, « tout en ayant aussi à l'esprit les exigences du paragraphe 3'(Brandstetter c. Autriche, précité, § 42 et Matytsina c. Russie, no 58428/10, § 168, 27 mars 2014).
  • EGMR - 9113/18 (anhängig)

    RYBIY v. UKRAINE and 5 other applications

    The parties are invited, in particular, to comment on the observance of the principle of equality of arms in that the courts refused to admit as evidence expert reports proposed by the applicant in support of his allegation that he had been the passenger rather than the driver of the car, which had become involved in a traffic accident, and to hear his experts via a videoconference (see, for example, Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, §§ 168-69 and 207-08, 27 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 75112/14

    MATOZAN v. CROATIA

    It is normally not the Court's role to determine whether a particular expert report available to the domestic judge was reliable or not (see Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 56935/13

    KRUNOSLAVA ZOVKO v. CROATIA

    It is normally not the Court's role to determine whether a particular expert report available to the domestic judge was reliable or not (see Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 43526/15

    PETIC c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 25824/14

    TARABARIC v. CROATIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht