Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SÜLEYMAN v. TURKEY

  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;Obtain attendance of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SÜLEYMAN v. TURKEY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Under these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the Government have been able to show with sufficient clarity that applications to the same effect would have had any different outcome given the trial court's stance on that matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, § 39, 4 September 2018, and compare A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 27, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Testimony or other declarations inculpating an accused may well be designedly untruthful or simply erroneous and the defence will scarcely be able to bring this to light if it lacks the information permitting it to test the author's reliability or cast doubt on his credibility (see Kostovski v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1989, § 42, Series A no. 166).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 28338/07

  ÖMER GÜNER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Under these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the Government have been able to show with sufficient clarity that applications to the same effect would have had any different outcome given the trial court's stance on that matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, § 39, 4 September 2018, and compare A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 27, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  The Court reiterates that the Contracting States are required to take positive steps, in particular to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  29900/96 and 3 others, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 56440/15

  SNIJDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  As regards the counterbalancing factors which permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of the untested witness evidence, the Court found the following elements of relevance in the assessment of the adequacy of counterbalancing factors: the trial court's approach to the untested evidence; the availability and strength of corroborative evidence supporting the untested witness statements; and the procedural measures taken to compensate for the lack of opportunity to directly cross-examine the witness at the trial (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, §§ 125-31 and 151; Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 85, 17 November 2020; and Keskin, cited above, § 65).

  In particular, in paragraph 65, it observes that while the judgments in the cases of Al-Khawaja and Tahery and Schatschaschwili (both cited above) concerned absent rather than anonymous witnesses, the Court has held that the problems raised by the two types of witnesses are not different in principle, since each results in a potential disadvantage for the defendant due to the inability to test the probity and credibility of the witnesses and to test the truthfulness and reliability of their evidence (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, § 127, and Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 62, 17 November 2020, and the references cited therein).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  The Court further reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 110, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR - 35054/22 (anhängig)

  GÖRGEL v. TÜRKIYE

  The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his inability to examine witness B.T. in person before the trial court (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, 30 July 2019, and Süleyman v. Turkey no. 59453/10, 17 November 2020).

  a) Was the applicant able to examine the witness against him (namely, B.T.), as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, 30 July 2019, and Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, 17 November 2020)?.

 
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 76619/11

  ÇETINKAYA v. TÜRKIYE

  The Court further reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 110, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 37404/18

  OGUZ v. TÜRKIYE

  The principles regarding the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses, including anonymous ones, can be found in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011), Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) and Süleyman v. Turkey (no. 59453/10, §§ 61-66, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62013/12

  ÇONGAR AND KALA v. TURKEY

  The principles regarding the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses, including anonymous ones, can be found in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-51, ECHR 2011); Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015); and Süleyman v. Turkey, (no. 59453/10, §§ 61-66, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  FAYSAL PAMUK v. TURKEY

  Furthermore, the Court has already held that the distance between two cities cannot be regarded of itself and in the abstract as a good reason for failure by judges to ensure the examination of witnesses in person (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 78, 17 November 2020) and that the Contracting States are required to take positive steps, in particular to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him.
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32043/11

  ORAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The principles regarding the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses can be found in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-51, ECHR 2011), Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) and Süleyman v. Turkey, (no. 59453/10, §§ 61-66, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 34176/11

  YARDIMCI v. TURKEY

  Relevant domestic law 27. A description of the relevant domestic law concerning the hearing of witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) may be found in Süleyman v. Turkey (no. 59453/10, §§ 41-43, 17 November 2020).