Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CENTELLES MAS AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CENTELLES MAS AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 38797/17

  JÚLÍUS ÞÓR SIGURÞÓRSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44799/19

  Taking into account what is at stake for the accused, the overall question would be whether the appeal court could, as matter of fair trial, properly examine the issues to be determined without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the accused or the witness in person (see Júlíus Þór Sigurórsson v. Iceland, no. 38797/17, § 32-38, 16 July 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 23002/07

  LACADENA CALERO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44799/19

  28399/09 and 51135/09, § 40, 8 October 2013; Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, § 46-50, 22 November 2011; and the cases cited in paragraphs 17-18 above).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14

  DAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44799/19

  The Court reiterates that an issue related to the principle of immediacy may arise when an appeal court overturns the decision of a lower court acquitting an applicant of criminal charges without a fresh examination of the evidence, including the hearing of witnesses and their cross-examination by the defence (see Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2), no. 57575/14, § 52, 10 November 2020; Roman Zurdo and Others v. Spain, nos.

 
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 1814/11

  MARILENA-CARMEN POPA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44799/19

  Accordingly, the Court notes that, in this case, the disagreement between the first and the second-instance courts did not concern the weight that could be attached to the evidentiary value of an expert report, but rather the reliability and credibility of the two experts who had reached opposite conclusions (see a contrario, Marilena-Carmen Popa v. Romania, no. 1814/11, § 46, 18 February 2020).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 51135/09

  GONZALEZ CARRASCO ET CALLE ARCAL c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44799/19

  28399/09 and 51135/09, § 40, 8 October 2013; Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, § 46-50, 22 November 2011; and the cases cited in paragraphs 17-18 above).
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 69019/11

  ZIRNITE v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44799/19

  Where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence, determination of the person's guilt or innocence is impossible as a matter of fair trial, without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person either by the accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence, or by the witness who testified during the proceedings and to whose statements it wishes to give a new interpretation (see Zirnite v. Latvia, no. 69019/11, § 46, 11 June 2020).