Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARPENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Karpenko v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  Lastly, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  The Court further observes that the rights of the defence require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him or her either when the statements were made or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Saïdi v. France, 20 September 1993, § 43, Series A no. 261-C, and A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  In conclusion, the Government drew the Court's attention to its findings in the cases of Lüdi v. Switzerland (15 June 1992, Series A no. 238) and Lucà v. Italy, (no. 33354/96, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  In particular, in the event that the witnesses cannot be examined and that this is due to the fact that they are missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21 in fine, Series A no. 242-A; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A; and Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 25, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  Given that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1, it is appropriate to examine this complaint under the two provisions taken together (see Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, § 25, Series A no. 203).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  In conclusion, the Government drew the Court's attention to its findings in the cases of Lüdi v. Switzerland (15 June 1992, Series A no. 238) and Lucà v. Italy, (no. 33354/96, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present his case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  In particular, in the event that the witnesses cannot be examined and that this is due to the fact that they are missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21 in fine, Series A no. 242-A; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A; and Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 25, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  It is also for the domestic courts to exclude evidence which is considered to be irrelevant (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  It is also for the domestic courts to exclude evidence which is considered to be irrelevant (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08

  KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

  The domestic courts are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, § 80, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 68837/14

  MOLDOVAN v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the domestic courts are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, § 80, 13 March 2012).