Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKEYEV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  As a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statement or at a later stage (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  Such measures form part of the diligence which the Contracting States must exercise in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 are enjoyed in an effective manner" (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  Furthermore, as Ms M."s and Ms K."s statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe their demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of their reliability (see, by contrast, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II).

• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  En outre, les déclarations formulées par les témoins devant les autorités d'enquête n'ayant pas fait l'objet d'un enregistrement vidéo, ni le requérant ni ses juges n'ont pu observer le comportement des témoins pendant leur interrogatoire et se faire une opinion quant à leur fiabilité (voir, pour un raisonnement similaire, Makeïev c. Russie, no 13769/04, § 42, 5 février 2009).
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08

  TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Or, une telle possibilité ne semble pas être prévue par le droit tchèque (pour l'absence d'enregistrement, voir, par exemple, Makeïev c. Russie, no 13769/04, § 42, 5 février 2009 ; Salikhov c. Russie, no 23880/05, § 118, 3 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  S.'s presence was of crucial importance to enable the court to make an effective assessment of his demeanour and of the reliability of his deposition (see Hulki Günes v. Turkey, no. 28490/95, § 92, ECHR 2003-VII (extracts); Vladimir Romanov, cited above, § 105; and Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, §§ 41-42 and 45, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 33780/04

  KONONENKO v. RUSSIA

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 35, 5 February 2009; and Samoshenkov and Strokov, cited above, § 75).
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 21731/03

  SAMOSHENKOV AND STROKOV v. RUSSIA

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see, most recently, Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, §§ 34-35, 5 February 2009, and, as a leading authority, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II).