Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLIMENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  No violation of Art. 6 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.09.2002 - 46503/99
• EGMR, 22.06.2005 - 46503/99
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

  On the contrary, the presence of these materials was fully compatible with the prosecution's duty of disclosure which requires the investigative authorities to disclose to the defence all material evidence both for and against the accused (see e.g. Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 417, § 36).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

  Whilst it is true that Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) guarantee to everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to represent himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, this right, as the Court has ruled on several occasions, is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions (see e.g. Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, § 29; X v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 9 October 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, p. 242).
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

  Furthermore, from the case-file and documents presented by the Government (see paragraph 30 in the summary of facts) it transpires that reasonable measures were taken by the court aimed at summoning these witnesses and it cannot be said that their failure to attend was imputable to the lack of diligence by the authorities in this respect (see, by contrast, Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, §§ 34-37).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

  In the present case the Court notes as regards the statements of witnesses P., M. and A. that the applicant and his defence team were given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses during the first round of criminal proceedings and to comment on the evidence that they had given at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings (see, by contrast, Kostovski v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, §§ 39-45; Windisch v. Austria, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 186, §§ 25-31).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

  In the present case the Court notes as regards the statements of witnesses P., M. and A. that the applicant and his defence team were given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses during the first round of criminal proceedings and to comment on the evidence that they had given at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings (see, by contrast, Kostovski v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, §§ 39-45; Windisch v. Austria, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 186, §§ 25-31).
• EGMR, 28.11.1978 - 6210/73

  Luedicke, Belkacem und Koç ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

  Insofar as the applicant complains about the presence of documents in the prosecution case-file which remained untranslated during the proceedings, the Court observes that in contrast to cases where an applicant could not understand or speak the language used in court (see, e.g. Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A no. 29, § 40), there is no indication in the present case that either the bill of indictment or the applicant's first instance conviction relied on any of these documents or that their presence in the prosecution case-file could have otherwise undermined the fairness of the proceedings.

• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Dans l'arrêt qu'elle a rendu en l'affaire Klimentïev c. Russie (no 46503/99, § 125, 16novembre 2006), elle a conclu à la non-violation de l'article 6 § 3 d) à cet égard, au motif que « des mesures raisonnables [avaient] été prises par le tribunal visant à faire comparaître les témoins [résidant à l'étranger] et l'on ne [pouvait] pas dire que leur non-comparution était imputable à un manque de diligence des autorités à cet égard'(voir aussi Sadak et autres, précité, § 67).