Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GALEA AND PAVIA v. MALTA

  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GALEA v. MALTA and 1 other application

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16, 77225/16
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 77209/16

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  In its case-law, the ECtHR had recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court-appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms inherent in the concept of a fair trial (see Bonisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985 (Merits), Series A no. 92 §§ 30-35; and Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, § 33).

  On this point, it is to be noted that by virtue of their functions as the neutral and impartial auxiliaries of a court, the statements of court-appointed experts might carry greater weight than those of an "expert witness" called by the accused (see Emmanuello v. Italy (dec.), no. 35791/97, 31 August 1999, and Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, § 33, Series A no. 92).

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  In its case-law, the ECtHR had recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court-appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms inherent in the concept of a fair trial (see Bonisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985 (Merits), Series A no. 92 §§ 30-35; and Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, § 33).

  However, the position occupied by experts throughout the proceedings and the manner in which they perform their functions is relevant in assessing whether the principle of equality of arms has been complied with (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 59, Series A no. 211).

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 6058/10

  JÓZEF WOS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  However, even in the absence of these aspects, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition set forth in Article 3 (see Józef Wos v. Poland, no. 6058/10, § 38, 28 June 2016, and Bouyid, cited above, § 87.).

 
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13

  TRESKAVICA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  The Court should not act as a fourth instance and will not therefore question the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan (No. 2), cited above, § 61), provided that the proceedings as a whole were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 (see Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007, and Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 77, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  They submitted that the expert's report had influenced the court to such a degree that its assessment of the other evidence had also been tainted, with the consequence that the judgment had been rendered highly unsafe and manifestly unreasonable and that the standard of proof required for criminal purposes had not been met (they referred to Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015, and Carmel Saliba v. Malta, no. 24221/13, 29 November 2016).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  The Court should not act as a fourth instance and will not therefore question the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan (No. 2), cited above, § 61), provided that the proceedings as a whole were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 (see Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007, and Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 77, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  In that regard, 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, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 22.01.2020 - 24221/13

  CARMEL SALIBA CONTRE MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  They submitted that the expert's report had influenced the court to such a degree that its assessment of the other evidence had also been tainted, with the consequence that the judgment had been rendered highly unsafe and manifestly unreasonable and that the standard of proof required for criminal purposes had not been met (they referred to Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015, and Carmel Saliba v. Malta, no. 24221/13, 29 November 2016).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08

  Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  In making this assessment the Court will look at the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was obtained, taking into account the rights of the defence, but also the interests of the public and victims in seeing crime properly prosecuted (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 101, ECHR 2015, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, §§ 250-252, ECHR 2016).