Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DELIKTAS v. TÜRKIYE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DELIKTAS v. TURKEY

  Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  However, there are other considerations, including the right to a trial within a reasonable time and the related need for expeditious handling of the courts' caseload, which must be taken into account in determining the need for a public hearing at stages of the proceedings subsequent to the trial at first instance (see Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 31, Series A no. 212-C).
• EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 38797/17

  SIGURTHORSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  Rn. 44 However, the Court has held that where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of a fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused claiming that he or she has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see Júlíus Þór Sigurórsson v. Iceland, no. 38797/17, § 33, 16 July 2019, and Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 32, Series A no. 134).
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 19844/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  The Court reiterates that it has accepted such circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see paragraph 43 above, and Becker v. Austria, no. 19844/08, § 39, 11 June 2015, and the cases cited therein).

• EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 894/12

  MTCHEDLISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  In that connection, the Court notes that in cases where the facts forming the basis of an accusation against the accused consist of evidence of a subjective and intangible nature, such as statements made by the accused or witnesses whose credibility may have an important bearing on a first-instance court's finding, a second-instance court which is empowered to review a case as regards questions of fact and law cannot leave a hearing request unanswered (see Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, § 39, 25 February 2021, and Becker, cited above, § 41, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 18358/02

  MUTTILAINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  Rn. 50 Moreover, the issues that the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal was called upon to examine were not such as to preclude from the outset the need to hold a hearing in accordance with the Court's case-law on this matter, considering that (i) the applicant's conviction had been based mainly on statements (see Muttilainen v. Finland, no. 18358/02, § 24, 22 May 2007) and hearsay evidence; (ii) the applicant had consistently denied having committed the offence of which he had been found guilty; and (iii) the applicant's conviction entailed serious consequences for him, including a term of imprisonment and his dismissal from the public service (see paragraph 15 above).
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 44671/98

  SIGURÞÓR ARNARSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  Moreover, even if the court of appeal has full jurisdiction to examine both points of law and of fact, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing or, if a hearing takes place, a right to be present in person (see, for instance, Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, no. 44671/98, § 30, 15 July 2003).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  Rn. 41 That said, the obligation to hold a hearing is not absolute (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A).
• EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02

  HADRABOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 18496/16

  ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  A breach of the rule of confidentiality may, in certain circumstances, justify the conclusion that an application is inadmissible on the grounds of abuse of the right of application (see Eskerkhanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18496/16 and 2 others, § 24, 25 July 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 75460/10

  AKDAG v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  That would be tantamount to an overly restrictive approach which would risk rendering the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 illusory (see, mutatis mutandis, Akdağ v. Turkey, no. 75460/10, §§ 48-61, 17 September 2019).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  AUSAD VALIMISED MTU v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 25784/09

  CAPSKÝ AND JESCHKEOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 44885/10

  TSONEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 30669/15

  MIRCETIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37376/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 40965/10

  AKCICEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 53349/08

  FURUHOLMEN v. NORWAY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 14175/16

  JÓHANNES BALDURSSON v. ICELAND and 3 other applications

  When such requests have been disregarded by the appellate court, this may contribute to a finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see Muttilainen, cited above, §§ 25-26; Talabér, cited above, §§ 28-29; R.H. v. Finland, no. 34165/05, § 32, 2 June 2009; Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 25, 29 September 2009; Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, § 39, 25 February 2021; Deliktaş v. Türkiye, no. 25852/18, § 51, 12 December 2023; contrast Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, §§ 15 and 31, Series A no. 134, where the applicant had made such a request but this was not mentioned in the Court's reasoning).
• EGMR, 26.11.2024 - 32565/23

  UÇAR v. TÜRKIYE

  Rn. 70 General principles regarding the right to a public hearing in criminal courts and, in particular, in appellate courts have recently been summarised in Deliktaş v. Türkiye (no. 25852/18, §§ 40-44, 12 December 2023).
• EGMR - 14029/23 (anhängig)

  PADERNI c. ITALIE et 1 autre affaire

  Compte tenu de la jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière (Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, §§ 55-61, CEDH 2000-VIII, Popa et Tănăsescu c. Roumanie, no 19946/04, §§ 45-46 et 52, 10 avril 2012, Gómez Olmeda c. Espagne, no 61112/12, § 36, 29 mars 2016, Maestri et autres c. Italie, nos 20903/15 et 3 autres, §§ 37-44 et 50-58, 8 juillet 2021, et Deliktaş c. Türkiye, no 25852/18, § 44, 12 décembre 2023) est-ce que la condamnation des requérants par la cour d'appel de Messine et la cour d'appel de Turin respectivement, sans être entendus personnellement, a porté atteinte aux principes du procès équitable, tels que garantis par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ?.

• EGMR - 10533/24 (anhängig)

  SIBIRLIOĞLU v. TÜRKİYE and 16 other applications

  Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (except for the applicant in application no. 13020/24) owing to the Regional Court of Appeal's alleged failure to address the applicants' request for a hearing before it (see Deliktaş v. Türkiye, no. 25852/18, §§ 40-55, 12 December 2023, and compare Mahmut Onur Uçar v. Türkiye (dec.), no. 32565/23, §§ 70-74, 26 November 2024)?.
• EGMR - 5737/23 (anhängig)

  D'ANGIOLILLO c. ITALIE et 2 autres affaires

  Compte tenu de la jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière, est-ce que la condamnation des requérants par la cour d'appel de Salerne, sans être entendus personnellement, a porté atteinte aux principes du procès équitable, tels que garantis par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, §§ 55-61, CEDH 2000-VIII, Popa et Tănăsescu c. Roumanie, no 19946/04, §§ 45-46 et 52, 10 avril 2012, Gómez Olmeda c. Espagne, no 61112/12, § 36, 29 mars 2016, Maestri et autres c. Italie, nos 20903/15 et 3 autres, §§ 37-44, 8 juillet 2021, et Deliktaş c. Türkiye, no 25852/18, § 44, 12 décembre 2023 ; voir aussi mutatis mutandis Styrmir Þór Bragason c. Islande, no 36292/14, § 78, 16 juillet 2019) ?.
• EGMR - 23839/22 (anhängig)

  NIKIKJ v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of the applicant's right to an oral hearing under Article 6 § 1 on account of the Court of Appeal's refusal to hold a hearing (see Deliktaş v. Türkiye, no. 25852/18, §§ 40-55, 12 December 2023; compare also Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, §§ 56-63, 14 February 2017, and Arps v. Croatia, no. 23444/12, §§ 24-29, 25 October 2016)?.
• EGMR - 7894/20 (anhängig)

  MURASOVA c. ITALIE

  Compte tenu de la jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière, est-ce que la condamnation de la requérante par la cour d'assises d'appel de Milan, sans être entendue personnellement, a porté atteinte aux principes du procès équitable, tels que garantis par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, §§ 55-61, CEDH 2000-VIII, Popa et Tănăsescu c. Roumanie, no 19946/04, §§ 45-46 et 52, 10 avril 2012, Maestri et autres c. Italie, nos 20903/15 et 3 autres, §§ 37-44 et 50-58, 8 juillet 2021, et Deliktaş c. Türkiye, no 25852/18, § 44, 12 décembre 2023) ?.
• EGMR - 30312/24 (anhängig)

  BAŞLI v. TÜRKİYE

  to that court, retracting his prior statements, denying having heard the applicant insult the President, and requesting to be heard again (see Deliktaş v. Türkiye, no. 25852/18, §§ 40-44, 12 December 2023)?.