Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1999,19689
EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,19689)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.12.1999 - 37019/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,19689)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Dezember 1999 - 37019/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,19689)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,19689) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    A.M. c. ITALIE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Violation de l'Art. 6-3-d Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    A.M. v. ITALY

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (40)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97
    Whilst the Court cannot speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings concerned had there been no violation of the Convention, it considers that the applicant suffered a loss of real opportunity (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

    LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97
    There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence; 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 statements or at a later stage (see the Van Mechelen and Others judgment cited above, p. 711, § 51, and the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

    UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97
    In particular, 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 the Van Mechelen and Others judgment cited above, p. 712, § 55; the Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; and the Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-33).
  • BGH, 29.11.2006 - 1 StR 493/06

    Konfrontationsrecht im Ermittlungsverfahren (Fragerecht: wesentliche Bedeutung

    Entscheidend ist vielmehr, ob das Verfahren in seiner Gesamtheit einschließlich der Art und Weise der Beweiserhebung und -würdigung fair war (st. Rspr.; vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 19. Dezember 1990 - Nr. 26/1989/186/246 - Delta gegen Frankreich = ÖJZ 1991, 425, 426; vom 28. August 1992 - Nr. 39/1991/291/362 - Artner gegen Österreich = EuGRZ 1992, 476; vom 7. August 1996 - Nr. 48/1995/554/640 - Ferrantelli und Santangelo gegen Italien = ÖJZ 1997, 151, 152; vom 14. Dezember 1999 - Nr. 37019/97 - A.M. gegen Italien = StraFo 2000, 374, 375; vom 18. Oktober 2001 - Nr. 37225/97 - N.F.B. gegen Deutschland = NJW 2003, 2297; vom 20. Dezember 2001 - Nr. 33900/96 - P.S. gegen Deutschland = NJW 2003, 2893, 2894; vom 23. November 2005 - Nr. 73047/01 - Haas gegen Deutschland = JR 2006, 289, 291; BGHSt 46, 93, 94 ff. m. w. Nachw.; BGH NStZ 2004, 505, 506; 2005, 224, 225; NStZ-RR 2005, 321).

    Insbesondere bei Vorliegen von Verfahrensfehlern hat er demgegenüber bereits dann einen Konventionsverstoß angenommen, wenn sich die Verurteilung zwar nicht allein, aber in einem entscheidenden Ausmaß ("to a decisive extent") auf Angaben eines solchen Zeugen stützt (EGMR (Delta) ÖJZ 1991, 425, 426; (A.M.) StraFo 2000, 374, 375; (P.S.) NJW 2003, 2893, 2894).

  • EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

    Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden

    Die Aufgabe des Gerichtshofs ist es, festzustellen, ob das Verfahren insgesamt fair war, einschließlich der Art und Weise, in der Beweise erhoben wurden (siehe u. a. Urteil Van Mechelen u a. ./ die Niederlande vom 23. April 1997, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1997-III, S. 711, Nr. 50; A.M. ./. Italien , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37019/97, Nr. 24, ECHR 1999-IX; Sadak u a. ./. Türkei (Nr. 1 ), Individualbeschwerden Nr. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 und 29903/96, Nr. 63, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

    Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

    As regards the use in evidence of statements obtained at the police inquiry and judicial investigation stages, it is not in itself inconsistent with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, provided that the rights of the defence have been respected (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, 28.05.2015 - 41107/10

    Y. v. SLOVENIA

    In this connection, the Court reiterates that, as a rule, the defendant's rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) require that he 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, 20 September 1993, § 43, Series A no. 261-C, and A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    As a rule, these rights 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, 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).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 60333/00

    SLYUSAREV v. RUSSIA

    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, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

    S.N. v. SWEDEN

    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).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 75109/01

    VIOREL BURZO c. ROUMANIE

    Elle rappelle que les droits de la défense sont restreints de manière incompatible avec les garanties de l'article 6 lorsqu'une condamnation se fonde, uniquement ou dans une mesure déterminante, sur les dépositions d'un témoin que, ni au stade de l'instruction, ni pendant les débats, l'accusé n'a eu la possibilité d'interroger ou de faire interroger (A.M. c. Italie, 14 décembre 1999, no 37019/97, CEDH 1999-IX, § 25, et Saïdi c. France, arrêt du 20 septembre 1993, série A no 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

    SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

    In particular, 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 (A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX; and Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

    Taxquet ./. Belgien

    The corollary of that, however, is that 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 the trial (see A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX, and Saïdi v. France, 20 September 1993, §§ 43-44, Series A no. 261-C).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

    MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  • OLG Brandenburg, 02.09.2020 - 1 Ss 54/20
  • EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05

    DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 64803/01

    IOSSELIANI c. GEORGIE

  • OLG Brandenburg, 02.09.2020 - 53 Ss 83/20
  • EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

    J.B. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

    KELLY v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

    SÜLEYMAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

    KARPENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

    NECHTO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 5953/02

    VOZHIGOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 31240/03

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 23.06.2011 - 20024/04

    ZDRAVKO PETROV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

    KHAMETSHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 22508/02

    F AND M v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 14151/02

    W v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 53897/00

    DANILA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

    MIRONOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 62390/00

    DMITRIJEVS contre la LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

    VANFULI v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 16139/03

    TEKELIOGLU c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 24015/02

    ANDANDONSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 1111/02

    TROFIMOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 64962/01

    OZEROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 74727/01

    BALLIU v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 26.07.2003 - 46168/99

    VEBIU contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  • EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 36586/08

    SOMMER c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 46602/99

    A.H. v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 17122/02

    B. v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 55720/00

    REGENSBURGER contre l'ITALIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht