Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,34692) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (No. 2)
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 19997/02
BOLDEA c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14
Thus, it must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed (see Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, § 30, 15 February 2007). - EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12
MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14
Accordingly, the Court is not prevented by Article 46 of the Convention from examining the applicant's new complaint concerning the unfairness of the reopened proceedings (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2015; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 47-49, 11 July 2017). - EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08
BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14
Accordingly, the Court is not prevented by Article 46 of the Convention from examining the applicant's new complaint concerning the unfairness of the reopened proceedings (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2015; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 47-49, 11 July 2017). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14
Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (Lucà v. Italy no. 33354/96, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13942/88
KRASKA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14
The misgivings of the individuals before the courts, for instance with regard to the fairness of the proceedings, must in addition be capable of being held to be objectively justified (see Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, § 32, Series A no. 254-B).
- EGMR, 15.06.2023 - 44764/16
ROCCELLA c. ITALIE
La Cour précise que ce principe de jurisprudence est étroitement lié à celui selon lequel l'une des exigences d'un procès pénal équitable est la possibilité pour l'accusé de confronter entre eux les témoins en présence du juge qui doit finalement trancher l'affaire, les observations dudit juge sur le comportement et la crédibilité de tel ou tel témoin pouvant avoir des conséquences pour l'accusé (Hanu, précité, § 40 ; Dan c. République de Moldova (no 2), no 57575/14, § 51, 10 novembre 2020). - EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 73352/14
BUSCU v. ROMANIA
Failure of the last-instance court to examine the applicant and a large number of the witnesses 52. The Court reiterates the principles set out in its case-law where there has been a conviction of a defendant by a last-instance court after he or she was acquitted by a lower court, without the last-instance court hearing the testimony of the defendant or the other witnesses in the case (see, amongst other authorities, Marilena-Carmen Popa v. Romania, no. 1814/11, § 35, 18 February 2020, with further references, and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2), 57575/14, § 52, 10 November 2020). - EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 42715/19
MADAM v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
The general principles concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings on appeal after the applicant's acquittal at first instance have been summarized in Dan v. Moldova (no. 8999/07, § 30, 5 July 2011), Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 72164/14, §§ 19-24, 16 June 2020) and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) (no. 57575/14, §§ 47-56, 10 November 2020). - EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44799/19
CENTELLES MAS AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
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, 18.01.2022 - 40427/18
MELEGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
The general principles concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings on appeal after the applicant's acquittal at first instance have been summarized in Dan v. Moldova (no. 8999/07, § 30, 5 July 2011); Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 72164/14, §§ 19-24, 16 June 2020) and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) (no. 57575/14, §§ 47-56, 10 November 2020).