Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 25470/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,60602) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
V.C. v. MOLDOVA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 25470/05
In view of the above the Court considers that the present case is clearly distinguishable from other cases in which similar complaints were raised but in which the Court found that the applicant had been convicted solely or to a decisive degree on the basis of the incriminating evidence of a third party whom he had no opportunity to cross-examine at any stage of the proceedings (see, among others, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, ECHR 2001-II) The present application is therefore manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. - EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 25470/05
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, and Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 25470/05
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 Unterpertinger v. Austria, 24 November 1986, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 110; Saïdi v. France, 20 September 1993, §§ 43-44, Series A no. 261-C; and Van Mechelen and Others, cited above, § 55).