Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VISSER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26668/95
• EKMR, 19.01.1998 - 26668/95
• EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

Papierfundstellen

• StraFo 2002, 160

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, it has to consider whether the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for instance, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III, p. 329, § 80).
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  KOK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  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, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  The Court has also had regard to its rulings in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court that Article 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, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  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, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  The Court has also had regard to its rulings in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court that Article 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, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  The Court has also had regard to its rulings in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court that Article 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, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  In its judgment of 2 July 1990, NJ 1990, no. 692, the Supreme Court considered that it had to be assumed in the light of the European Court's Kostovski judgment (20 November 1989, Series A no. 166) that the use of statements by anonymous witnesses was subject to stricter requirements than those established in its case-law until then.

• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Jedoch sollten Aussagen, die von einem Zeugen unter Bedingungen erlangt wurden, in denen die Rechte der Verteidigung nicht in dem Maße gewahrt wurden, wie dies nach der Konvention normalerweise erforderlich ist, mit äußerster Sorgfalt behandelt werden (siehe Visser ./. die Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26668/95, Nr. 44, 14. Februar 2002; S. N. ./. Schweden , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 34209/96, Nr. 53, ECHR 2002-V).
• BGH, 26.09.2002 - 1 StR 111/02

  Vorlage; Anfrageverfahren; audiovisuelle Vernehmung von Vertrauenspersonen der …

  Die neuere Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat der Verwertung des Wissens anonym gehaltener Zeugen durch Beweissurrogate erhebliche Grenzen gesetzt (z.B. EGMR StV 1990, 481 - Kostovski ./. Niederlande - StV 1991, 193 - Windisch ./. Österreich - NJW 1992, 388 - Lüdi ./. Schweiz - StV 1997, 617 - van Mechelen ./. Niederlande - StraFo 2002, 160 - Visser ./. Niederlande -).

  Mit seinem Urteil in dem Fall van Mechelen (StV 1997, 617; ebenso neuestens EGMR StraFo 2002, 160 - Visser ./. Niederlande -) hat der EGMR die Grenzen noch deutlich enger gezogen.

• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Dans les affaires de ce type, la Cour doit en règle générale vérifier si les raisons avancées par les autorités pour préserver l'anonymat d'un témoin ou refuser la divulgation d'une pièce sont « pertinentes et suffisantes'(voir, entre autres, Doorson c. Pays-Bas, précité, § 71 ; voir aussi Visser c. Pays-Bas, no 26668/95, § 47, 14 février 2002).

 
• OLG Brandenburg, 02.09.2020 - 1 Ss 54/20
  Je bedeutsamer sie für die Beweisführung ist, umso mehr zusätzliche und valide Beweismittel müssen vorliegen (vgl. EGMR StraFO 2002, 160).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 52479/99

  RYBACKI v. POLAND

  The national authorities must adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to keep secret the identity of certain witnesses (see, in particular, Doorson v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1996, Reports 1996-II, pp. 470-471, § 71; Visser v. the Netherlands, no. 26668/95, § 47, 14 February 2002).
• EGMR, 11.09.2006 - 22007/03

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren, insbesondere Konfrontationsrecht bei …

  Die innerstaatlichen Behörden müssen wichtige und hinreichende Gründe für die Geheimhaltung der Identität bestimmter Zeugen anführen (siehe insbesondere Doorson ./. die Niederlande, Urteil vom 26. März 1996, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1996-II, S. 470-471, Nr. 71; Visser ./. die Niederlande , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26668/95, Nr. 47, 14. Februar 2002).
• OLG Brandenburg, 02.09.2020 - 53 Ss 83/20
  Je bedeutsamer sie für die Beweisführung ist, umso mehr zusätzliche und valide Beweismittel müssen vorliegen (vgl. EGMR StraFO 2002, 160).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 17988/02

  ZHOGLO v. UKRAINE

  Evidence obtained from a witness under conditions in which the rights of the defence cannot be secured to the extent normally required by the Convention should, however, be treated with extreme care (see Visser v. the Netherlands, no. 26668/95, § 44, 14 February 2002, and S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 53, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  GOSSA v. POLAND

  Evidence obtained from a witness under conditions in which the rights of the defence cannot be secured to the extent normally required by the Convention should, however, be treated with extreme care (see Visser v. the Netherlands, no. 26668/95, § 44, 14 February 2002; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 53, ECHR 2002-V).