Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- HRR Strafrecht
Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; § 251 Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 StPO; § 261 StPO
Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden Verwertung unkonfrontierter Aussagen; Hörensagen; Verzicht; Fragerecht; Hinwirkungspflichten des Staates: ausreichende aktive Schritte; Einbeziehung des nationalen Beweisrechts in die Prüfung des ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BONEV v. BULGARIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (10) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 39481/98
MILD AND VIRTANEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00
As a rule, these rights entail an adequate and proper opportunity for the accused to challenge and question the witnesses against him, either when they make their statements or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191"A, p. 16, § 36; and, more recently, Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, § 42, 26 July 2005). - EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 71846/01
RACHDAD c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00
In the event the impossibility to examine the witnesses or have them examined is due to the fact that they are missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Artner, p. 10, § 21 in fine; Delta, p. 16, § 37, both cited above; and Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 25, 13 November 2003).
- EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06
J.B. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The Court reiterates that as the guarantees of Article 6 § 3 (d) are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in the first paragraph of that Article, the complaint must be examined under the two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 40, 8 June 2006).In the event that the impossibility to examine the witnesses or have them examined is due to the fact that they are missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 43, 8 June 2006).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.03.2019 - C-38/18
Gambino und Hyka - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in …
57 Vgl. EGMR, 8. Juni 2006, Bonev/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2006:0608JUD006001800, § 44). - EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04
MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA
En ce qui concerne les dépositions de témoins auxquels on n'a pu faire subir un interrogatoire en présence de l'accusé ou de son avocat (voir Sadak et autres c. Turquie, nos 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 et 29903/96, § 67, CEDH 2001-VIII), la Cour rappelle que, combiné avec le paragraphe 3, 1e paragraphe 1 de l'article 6 oblige les Etats contractants à des mesures positives qui consistent à permettre à l'accusé d'interroger ou faire interroger les témoins à charge et, lorsque cela s'avère impossible parce qu'ils sont introuvables, les autorités doivent déployer des efforts raisonnables pour s'assurer de leur comparution (voir Rachdad c. France, no 71846/01, § 25, 13 novembre 2003 ; et Bonev c. Bulgarie, no 60018/00, § 43, 8 juin 2006).
- EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
Z. v. LATVIA
With respect to statements of witnesses who proved to be unavailable for questioning in the presence of the defendant or his counsel, the Court recalls that paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken together with paragraph 3 requires the Contracting States to take positive steps so as to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see, Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII) and - in the event that the impossibility of examining witnesses or having them examined is due to the fact that they are missing - the authorities must take reasonable efforts to secure their presence (see Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 25, 13 November 2003, and Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 43, 8 June 2006). - EGMR, 23.06.2011 - 20024/04
ZDRAVKO PETROV v. BULGARIA
It can therefore be concluded that the applicant, who was legally represented (contrast Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 41, 8 June 2006, and Khametshin v. Russia, no. 18487/03, §§ 39-40, 4 March 2010), can reasonably be regarded as having waived his right to examine Ms G.Y. or have her examined (see Andandonskiy, cited above, § 54). - EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08
TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
Ainsi, elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 §§ 1 et 3 d) de la Convention dans des affaires où les autorités internes n'avaient adopté aucune mesure positive en vue de localiser le témoin et d'assurer la possibilité pour la défense de l'interroger (voir, par exemple, Zentar, précité, § 30 ; Bonev c. Bulgarie, no 60018/00, § 44, 8 juin 2006 ; Breukhoven c. République tchèque, no 44438/06, §§ 49 et 56, 21 juillet 2011), ou encore dans des cas où les autorités avaient adopté certaines mesures, mais insuffisantes ou inadéquates à la lumière des circonstances de l'espèce (voir, par exemple, Nechto c. Russie, no 24893/05, §§ 126-127, 24 janvier 2012 ; Gabrielyan c. Arménie, no 8088/05, §§ 81-83, 10 avril 2012). - EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07
EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witness examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005; Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007). - EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03
MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA
In the event that the impossibility of examining the witnesses or having them examined is due to the fact that they are absent or otherwise missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 43, 8 June 2006). - EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 37981/06
SARKIZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
It is true that even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witnesses examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005, Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007). - EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 75330/01
SHARKUNOV AND MEZENTSEV v. RUSSIA
The Court also reiterates that where the impossibility of examining witnesses or having them examined is due to the fact that they are absent or otherwise missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 43, 8 June 2006).