Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,4393
EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06 (https://dejure.org/2017,4393)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.03.2017 - 16980/06 (https://dejure.org/2017,4393)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. März 2017 - 16980/06 (https://dejure.org/2017,4393)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,4393) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PALCHIK v. UKRAINE

    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to ...

 
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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

    LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06
    The Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011); it will therefore consider the applicant's complaint under both provisions taken together (see Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 23, Series A no. 186, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

    EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06
    Furthermore, the domestic courts are best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, and Dulskiy v. Ukraine, no. 61679/00, § 93, 1 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

    Windisch ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06
    The Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011); it will therefore consider the applicant's complaint under both provisions taken together (see Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 23, Series A no. 186, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 47082/12

    PAIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06
    The Court formulated the general principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and statements previously made by him or her were admitted as evidence in Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015), and applied them recently in Paic v. Croatia (no. 47082/12, §§ 27-31, 29 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 50170/14

    CZERSKI v. POLAND

    As regards the investigation, the Court observes that: (i) the applicant was represented by a lawyer at that stage (compare and contrast with Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 71); (ii) the applicant was confronted with G.C. (see paragraph 6 above; Palchik v. Ukraine, no. 16980/06, § 10, 2 March 2017, compare and contrast with Prajina v. Romania, no. 5592/05, § 46, 7 January 2014); (iii) the applicant's lawyer did not attend the confrontation and never contended that he had not been notified; (iv) the applicant explicitly stated that he did not object to the confrontation being conducted in his lawyer's absence; and (v) the applicant refrained from asking G.C. any questions himself during the confrontation.
  • EGMR, 23.02.2021 - 62915/17

    IANCU c. ROUMANIE

    Elle note qu'en l'espèce les juges du premier degré avaient déjà analysé la preuve en question et que la requérante, assistée de l'avocat de son choix, avait déjà eu la possibilité de faire interroger les témoins dont elle souhaitait une nouvelle audition (paragraphe 10 ci-dessus ; voir également, mutatis mutandis, Palchik c. Ukraine, no 16980/06, § 50, 2 mars 2017, et Previti c. Italie (déc.), no 45291/06, § 222, 8 décembre 2009).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 32084/19

    AL ALO v. SLOVAKIA

    Furthermore, the Court has held that the ability to confront a witness for the prosecution at the investigation stage is an important procedural safeguard which can compensate for the handicaps faced by the defence on account of absence of such a witness from the trial (see Palchik v. Ukraine, no. 16980/06, § 50, 2 March 2017,with further references).
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