Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07, 42757/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHODORKOVSKIY AND LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- archive.ph (Pressemeldung, 14.01.2020)
Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"
In Nachschlagewerken
- Wikipedia(Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)+3Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben BezugEGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"
EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 14902/04Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski
EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5829/04Russland wegen Chodorkowski verurteilt
Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KHODORKOVSKIY v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (28)
- EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
The Government pointed out that, according to the Court's case-law, the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law (see Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-III) and that, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce (see Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses (see Vidal, cited above, § 33, Series A no. 235-B); it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter (see, among other authorities, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 139, 18 December 2018, Engel and Others, cited above, § 91, and Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89).
The Court reiterates that, as a general rule, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to the national courts to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses (see Vidal, cited above, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
- EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96
Schießbefehl
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
When speaking of "law", Article 7 alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention refers elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises written as well as unwritten law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 335-C; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 140, ECHR 2008). - EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03
Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
The Court acknowledged in the case of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 81-84, ECHR 2009) the existence of several approaches to whether the offences for which an applicant was prosecuted were the same.
- EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01
Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
Accordingly, if a tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try a defendant in accordance with the provisions applicable under domestic law, it is not "established by law" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-III). - EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97
STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
Moreover, according to its general approach, the Court does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, nos. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 73-95, ECHR 2008; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 101, 25 June 2009). - EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 17103/10
Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Unschuldsvermutung gegenüber einem türkischen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and the guarantees relating to the examination of witnesses set out in Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention are elements of the right to a fair hearing set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and must be taken into account in any assessment of the fairness of proceedings as a whole (see Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 70, Reports 1996-II; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 162 and 175, ECHR 2010; Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011; Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev, cited above, § 743; and Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, §§ 42-43, 27 February 2014). - EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 92, 17 September 2009, and Huhtamäki v. Finland, no. 54468/09, § 41, 6 March 2012). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
The same also applies to expert witnesses (see Gregacevic, cited above, § 67, and Constantinides, cited above, § 39): it is the Court's well-established case-law that the defence must have the right to study and challenge not only an expert report as such, but also the credibility of those who prepared it, by direct questioning (see, among other authorities, Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 42, Series A no. 211; Doorson, cited above, §§ 81-82; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, § 158, 11 December 2008; and Matytsina v. Russia, cited above, § 177). - EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79
Bönisch ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
That being said, some of the Court's approaches to the personal examination of "witnesses" under Article 6 § 3 (d) are no doubt relevant in the context of examination of expert evidence and may be applied, mutatis mutandis, with due regard to the difference in their status and role (see Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, § 29, Series A no. 92, with further references, and Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 168, 27 March 2014). - EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92
S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
When speaking of "law", Article 7 alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention refers elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises written as well as unwritten law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 335-C; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 140, ECHR 2008). - EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79
Minelli ./. Schweiz
- EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10
GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98
DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE
- EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96
S.N. v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87
PADOVANI v. ITALY
- EGMR, 06.10.2011 - 50425/06
SOROS c. FRANCE
- EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02
KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
GLANTZ v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54468/09
HUHTAMAKI v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 16.09.1999 - 29569/95
BUSCEMI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05
LIIVIK v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02
POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14
HODZIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 9418/13
KARTOYEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Les dispositions du code de procédure pénale relatives aux preuves, notamment aux rapports d"« experts'et aux avis de « spécialistes ", sont décrites dans l'arrêt Khodorkovskiy et Lebedev c. Russie (no 2) (nos 42757/07 et 51111/07, §§ 372-384, 14 janvier 2020).S'appuyant sur les articles 53, 74 et 86 du code de procédure pénale (on trouvera le libellé de ces articles dans l'arrêt Khodorkovskiy et Lebedev c. Russie (no 2), nos 42757/07 et 51111/07, §§ 372, 374 et 381, 14 janvier 2020), ils soutiennent que la défense avait le droit d'obtenir un avis de spécialiste et de le verser au dossier pénal.
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08
NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA
A more detailed description of the court proceedings against Yukos and its owners and executives can be found in OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, 20 September 2011); Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013); and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2) (nos. 42757/07 and 51111/07, 14 January 2020).42757/07 and 51111/07, § 430, 14 January 2020).
- EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11
FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
42757/07 and 51111/07, § 499, 14 January 2020).
- EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 88/05
DANILOV v. RUSSIA
42757/07 and 51111/07, § 475, 14 January 2020). - EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37677/16
ABDULLIN c. RUSSIE
Appréciation de la Cour 37. La Cour observe qu'en l'espèce la défense a été en mesure de verser le rapport du spécialiste S. dans le dossier pénal et rien n'indique qu'elle ait demandé d'interroger ledit spécialiste à l'audience (voir, a contrario, Khodorkovskiy et Lebedev c. Russie (no 2), nos 42757/07 et 51111/07, § 497, 14 janvier 2020). - EGMR - 34287/22 (anhängig)
MARCHENKO c. RUSSIE
- les experts B., M. et S. qui avaient rédigé le rapport d'expertise du 11 février 2020 sur le caractère secret des renseignements dont la collecte avait été imputée au requérant (comparer avec Khodorkovskiy et Lebedev c. Russie (no 2), nos 42757/07 et 51111/07, §§ 481-485, 14 janvier 2020, et Danilov c. Russie, no 88/05, §§ 112-21, 1er décembre 2020) ;. - EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 34690/21
PANAET c. ROUMANIE
De même, lorsque la défense insiste pour que le tribunal recueille d'autres éléments de preuve (tels qu'un rapport d'expert), il appartient aux juridictions internes de décider s'il est nécessaire ou souhaitable d'accepter ces éléments de preuve pour examen lors du procès (Khodorkovskiy et Lebedev c. Russie (no 2), nos 42757/07 et 51111/07, § 487, 14 janvier 2020).