Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ODDONE AND PECCI v. SAN MARINO

  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)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 26581/17
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17, 31024/17

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 344/04

  PAPON v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017, and Papon v. France (dec.), no. 344/04, ECHR 2005-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017, and Papon v. France (dec.), no. 344/04, ECHR 2005-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  Relying on Lüdi v. Switzerland (15 June 1992, § 47, Series A no. 238) he observed that, pursuant to Article 6 § 3 (d), an accused person must enjoy an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statements or at a later stage.

 
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  Relying on Cornelis v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), the first applicant concluded that the above-mentioned circumstances made L. and G."s account of the facts extremely unreliable.
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 19186/10

  ZIMA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  § 47, no. 19186/10, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  CONIAC v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  Even assuming the Government are not estopped from raising this objection (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 52-53, 15 December 2016), the Court reiterates that an applicant is not normally required to avail himself of an extraordinary remedy for the purposes of the exhaustion rule under Article 35 § 1 (see Coniac v. Romania, no. 4941/07, § 36, 6 October 2015; Kiiskinen v. Finland (dec.) no. 26323/95, ECHR 1999-V; and contrast Zima v. Poland, (dec.).
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

  SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  Relying on Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011) and Sofri and Others v. Italy ((dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003 VIII), the Government argued that, in order to decide whether the lack of cross-examination of G. and L. had determined a violation of Article 6 it was necessary to evaluate the overall fairness of the proceedings.