Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WELKE AND BIALEK v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  PULLICINO v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  To deny an accused or his lawyer the opportunity to compile notes and to rely on them in the course of argument may give rise to unfairness (see, for example, Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000), and, depending on the circumstances, it may not be an answer to a complaint of such that both parties laboured under the same handicap or that the applicant or his lawyer could rely on their memories to compensate for their inability to take and rely on notes.

  The Court has, on previous occasions, emphasised that an accused's effective participation in a criminal trial must equally include the right to compile notes in order to facilitate the conduct of his defence, irrespective of whether or not he is represented by counsel (see, for example, Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000; Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 59, ECHR 2007/05).

• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  For those reasons, the applicants did not have an "arguable claim" for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I, and Vrábel v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 77928/01, 19 January 2010).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  VRABEL v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  For those reasons, the applicants did not have an "arguable claim" for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I, and Vrábel v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 77928/01, 19 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  Thus, it has held that despite the wording which would seem to suggest that reading out in open court is required, other means of rendering a judgment public may be compatible with Article 6 § 1. As a general rule, the form of publicity to be given to the judgment under domestic law must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1. In making this assessment, account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings (see, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 25-27, Series A no. 71; Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 30-32, Series A no. 72; and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  It is also important to note in this connection that, as underlined by the Court of Appeal, no evidence was withheld from the defence (contrast, Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, §§ 52-54, 22 July 2003).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78

  Axen ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  Thus, it has held that despite the wording which would seem to suggest that reading out in open court is required, other means of rendering a judgment public may be compatible with Article 6 § 1. As a general rule, the form of publicity to be given to the judgment under domestic law must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1. In making this assessment, account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings (see, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 25-27, Series A no. 71; Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 30-32, Series A no. 72; and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  The Court recalls that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  Thus, it has held that despite the wording which would seem to suggest that reading out in open court is required, other means of rendering a judgment public may be compatible with Article 6 § 1. As a general rule, the form of publicity to be given to the judgment under domestic law must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1. In making this assessment, account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings (see, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 25-27, Series A no. 71; Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 30-32, Series A no. 72; and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  The Court has nonetheless applied it with some flexibility (see Welke and Bialek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, § 83, 1 March 2011).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  Holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera must be "strictly necessary" in that last situation mentioned above and, in any event, must be "strictly required" by the circumstances of the case in respect of the other situations listed above (ibid., § 40; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, § 71, 5 February 2009; Welke and Bialek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, § 74, 1 March 2011; and Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19

  MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA

  Article 6 § 1 does not, however, prohibit courts from deciding, in the light of the special features of the case submitted to them, to derogate from this principle: in accordance with the actual wording of this provision, "... the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice"; holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera, must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case (see, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 34, Series A no. 325-A; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006; and Welke and Bia?‚ek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, § 74, 1 March 2011).

 
• EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 70619/11

  SAKHVADZE AND ZURABISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In such circumstances, the exclusion of the public can, in the particular circumstances of the present case, be considered to have been strictly necessary (see Welke and Bialek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, §§ 75-77, 1 March 2011).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 36480/12

  KOLEV c. BULGARIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour accorde une importance particulière à la circonstance que le requérant n'a, à aucun moment, contesté, devant les deux instances juridictionnelles qui ont examiné son recours, la pertinence de la classification des documents en cause ou la tenue des audiences à huis clos (voir, à titre de comparaison, Welke et Bialek c. Pologne, no 15924/05, § 77, 1 mars 2011, et Nikolova et Vandova, précité, §§ 71-75).
• EGMR - 25423/18 (anhängig)

  MUNTEANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  La cause a-t-elle été entendue publiquement par le Conseil supérieur de la magistrature (Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá c. Portugal [GC], nos 55391/13 et 2 autres, §§ 187-192, 6 novembre 2018) ? L'exclusion du public de la séance tenue en l'espèce par cette autorité était-elle « strictement nécessaire'pour l'un des buts autorisés par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Martinie c. France [GC], no 58675/00, § 40, CEDH 2006-VI, et Welke et Bia?‚ek c. Pologne, no 15924/05, § 74, 1er mars 2011) ?.
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 26129/09

  CHAKHMAKHCHYAN AND OGANESYAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that while the Convention does not prohibit the holding of proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera, it must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case (see Welke and Bialek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, § 74, 1 March 2011, and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-VI), even where an applicant would otherwise be afforded an adequate opportunity to put forward a defence with due regard to his right to an oral hearing and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure (see Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021).