Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BONDAR v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BONDAR v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 18895/08

  In the light of its case-law on the matter (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references, and Singh and Others v. Greece, no. 60041/13, § 26, 19 January 2017), the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise.
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 60041/13

  SINGH ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 18895/08

  In the light of its case-law on the matter (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references, and Singh and Others v. Greece, no. 60041/13, § 26, 19 January 2017), the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise.
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 18895/08

  These two elements are intertwined because the facts complained of ought to be seen in the light of the legal arguments adduced and vice versa (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 110, ECHR 2018, with further references).

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  FAYSAL PAMUK v. TURKEY

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that failure to recall a witness previously cross-examined by the applicant in the event of a retraction of his or her incriminating testimony may raise an issue under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Bondar v. Ukraine, no. 18895/08, § 75, 16 April 2019).
• EGMR - 27166/21 (anhängig)

  KALANDIA v. GEORGIA

  Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, notably G.J. and G.B, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Bondar v. Ukraine, no. 18895/08, 16 April 2019)?.
• EGMR - 21350/19 (anhängig)

  HAKOBYAN v. ARMENIA

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, were the principles of adversarial hearing and equality of arms respected as regards the applicant's right to examine witness H.Z. during her second questioning in court? Did the domestic courts provide adequate reasons for the alleged limitation of the applicant's right to put questions to H.Z. (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 193 et seq., 23 October 2012; Bondar v. Ukraine, no. 18895/08, §§ 74 et seq., 16 April 2019; and Chernika v. Ukraine, no. 53791/11, §§ 40-41 and 46, 12 March 2020)?.