Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KELLY v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  However, the Court has also found that the relevant adverse evidence was such a minor part of the evidence founding the conviction that its admission was considered insufficient, of itself, to render the proceedings seen in their entirety to be unfair (Haas v. Germany, (dec.) No. 73047/01 17 November 2005; the above-cited Gossa judgment, at § 63; the Mamikoyan v. Armenia, cited above, § 44-46; and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 220, ECHR 2009-... where the Court found that a procedure under Article 5 § 4 required substantially the same fair trial guarantees as provided by Article 6 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  However, "even when "counterbalancing" procedures are found to compensate sufficiently the handicaps under which the defence labours, a conviction should not be based either solely or to a decisive extent" on such adverse evidence (Doorson, at §§ 72-76 and Van Van Mechelen, at §§ 54-55, both cited above; see also A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX; and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; and Doorson v. the Netherlands, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; and Doorson v. the Netherlands, cited above).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  The Court has also examined the compatibility with Article 6 of reliance on evidence from anonymous witnesses seeking protection (Doorson v. the Netherlands and Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, both cited above, as well as, more recently, Krasniki v. the Czech Republic, no. 51277/99, 28 February 2006) as well as from witnesses who were unavailable for examination during the criminal proceedings for various reasons (Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-V; and, more recently, Zentar v. France, no. 17902/02, 13 April 2006; Gossa v. Poland, no. 47986/99, 9 January 2007; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; and Mamikonyan v. Armenia, no. 25083/05, 16 March 2010).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  However, "even when "counterbalancing" procedures are found to compensate sufficiently the handicaps under which the defence labours, a conviction should not be based either solely or to a decisive extent" on such adverse evidence (Doorson, at §§ 72-76 and Van Van Mechelen, at §§ 54-55, both cited above; see also A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX; and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  The Court has also examined the compatibility with Article 6 of reliance on evidence from anonymous witnesses seeking protection (Doorson v. the Netherlands and Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, both cited above, as well as, more recently, Krasniki v. the Czech Republic, no. 51277/99, 28 February 2006) as well as from witnesses who were unavailable for examination during the criminal proceedings for various reasons (Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-V; and, more recently, Zentar v. France, no. 17902/02, 13 April 2006; Gossa v. Poland, no. 47986/99, 9 January 2007; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; and Mamikonyan v. Armenia, no. 25083/05, 16 March 2010).
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 17902/02

  ZENTAR c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  The Court has also examined the compatibility with Article 6 of reliance on evidence from anonymous witnesses seeking protection (Doorson v. the Netherlands and Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, both cited above, as well as, more recently, Krasniki v. the Czech Republic, no. 51277/99, 28 February 2006) as well as from witnesses who were unavailable for examination during the criminal proceedings for various reasons (Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-V; and, more recently, Zentar v. France, no. 17902/02, 13 April 2006; Gossa v. Poland, no. 47986/99, 9 January 2007; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; and Mamikonyan v. Armenia, no. 25083/05, 16 March 2010).
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 24952/02

  HENRYK AND ADAM KRZYZANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  Instead, it must confine itself, as far as possible, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, among many other authorities, N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/02, § 56, ECHR 2002-X, cited in Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83, 16 November 2010).
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  The Court refers to the description of the matters leading to the adoption of the 1939 Act in its judgment in Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, §§ 1-7, Series A no. 3.
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND

  In Donohoe v. Ireland, the Court considered that it was appropriate to be guided by the general principles articulated in relation to absent witnesses in a situation involving so-called "belief evidence", provided by a law-enforcement official and based on information received from unidentified sources (see Donahoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 78, 12 December 2013; see also Kelly v. Ireland (dec.), no. 41130/06, 14 December 2014).