Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLYUSAREV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 60333/00
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 60333/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  Thereafter for the purposes of the Convention he was a person convicted by a competent court, pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention and, consequently, ceased to have been detained pending investigation and trial under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000, ECHR 2000-X; see also, as a classic authority, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9).

  In Daktaras v. Lithuania (no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X) the Court emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of an offence.

• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when he was making his statements or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, p. 56, § 43, and A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).

  However, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see A. M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX, and Saïdi cited above, §§ 43-44).

• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  As regards the fact that Ms Ivanyutina supervised the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment and, at the same time, supported the accusation against the applicant at the trial, the Court recalls that, as a general rule, public prosecutors are not regarded as a part of the judiciary, at least for the purposes of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see the general definition of what is a "tribunal" under Article 6, outlined in Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; see also, mutatis mutandis, Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2003-...).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  Thus, the Court has already found that in certain circumstances, in particular where the victim sustained serious injuries in suspicious circumstances and the attention of the authorities was sufficiently drawn to that situation, the authorities were under the duty to investigate the alleged ill-treatment ex officio, even without an appropriate formal complaint from the victim (see, for example, Aksoy cited above, § 56; see also Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  First, the Court recalls that in order to determine whether the aim of Article 6 - a fair trial - has been achieved, regard must be had to the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the case (see, among many other authorities, Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 109, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  As regards the fact that Ms Ivanyutina supervised the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment and, at the same time, supported the accusation against the applicant at the trial, the Court recalls that, as a general rule, public prosecutors are not regarded as a part of the judiciary, at least for the purposes of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see the general definition of what is a "tribunal" under Article 6, outlined in Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; see also, mutatis mutandis, Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2003-...).
• EKMR, 01.06.1972 - 4428/70

  X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (see, among other authorities, Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89; see also X. v. Austria, no. 4428/70, Commission decision of 1 July 1972, Collection 40, pp. 1 - 10).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  (see, mutatis mutandis, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, § 35).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  Nevertheless, whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (see, inter alia, Adolf v. Austria, judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, pp. 17-19, §§ 36-41).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

  Consequently, the complaint will be examined under the two provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM