Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16, 24818/16, 33893/16 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,17325) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BERARDI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO
Partly struck out of the list;Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16, 24818/16, 33893/16
- EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95
ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16
In addition, Article 6 § 1 requires that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000 II). - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16
The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain (GC) no. 30544/96 § 28 ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99
CAMILLERI v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16
In the Court's opinion the opportunity allowed to the applicants to undermine the probative value of that statement more than compensated for any alleged disadvantage which may have resulted from the fact that the statement had been made in circumstances in which they had been unable to challenge its veracity (see, in similar circumstances, Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, ECHR 2000). - EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11
KAPUSTYAK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16
Moreover, the above-mentioned article does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf, and it is accordingly not sufficient for a defendant to complain that he has not been allowed to question certain witnesses; he must, in addition, support his request by explaining why it is important for the witnesses concerned to be heard, and their evidence must be necessary for the establishment of the truth (see Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 29, ECHR 2003-V) and that the refusal to call witnesses was prejudicial to his defence rights (see Kapustyak v. Ukraine, no. 26230/11, § 89, 3 March 2016). - EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 15602/07
SIMON PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16
However, only such measures restricting the rights of the defence which are strictly necessary are permissible under Article 6 § 1. Moreover, in order to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, any difficulties caused to the defence by a limitation on its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see Simon Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 15602/07, § 100, 15 September 2016 and Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2000 II).