Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KESKIN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence) (Article 6 - Right to a ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KESKIN v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 2205/16

  The concept of "equality of arms" does not, however, exhaust the content of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6, nor that of paragraph 1, of which this phrase represents one application among many others (see, among other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10

  D.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 2205/16

  The Court observes that those requests were not rejected on grounds such as death or fear, absence on health grounds or the witnesses" unreachability (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 119, with further references), nor on grounds related to the special features of the criminal proceedings (see, for instance, S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-V, and D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25307/10 § 47, 2 April 2013); the Court of Appeal's sole justification for the rejection of the requests lay in its finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate the defence's interest in the examination of these witnesses.
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 71034/13

  BOSHKOSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 2205/16

  They can be viewed, therefore, as specific aspects of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 251, 13 September 2016; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010; Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 100; and Boshkoski v. North Macedonia, no. 71034/13, § 37, 4 June 2020).
• EGMR, 12.03.2020 - 53791/11

  CHERNIKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 2205/16

  The Court reiterates that, as a rule, where a violation of Article 6 of the Convention is found, a retrial or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested, represents in principle the most appropriate form of redressing that violation (see, among other authorities, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 126, ECHR 2006-II, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, Cabral v. the Netherlands, no. 37617/10, §§ 42-43, 28 August 2018 and Chernika v. Ukraine, no. 53791/11, § 82, 12 March 2020).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 2205/16

  The Court has defined such witnesses, to whom it also frequently refers as "prosecution witnesses", as persons whose deposition may serve to a material degree as the basis for a conviction and which thus constitutes evidence for the prosecution (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 41, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 56440/15

  SNIJDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  They can be viewed, therefore, as specific aspects of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 251, 13 September 2016; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010; Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 100; and Keskin v. the Netherlands, no. 2205/16, § 38, 19 January 2021).

  They can be viewed, therefore, as specific aspects of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 55 of the present judgment and, inter alia, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 251, 13 September 2016; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 100, ECHR 2015; and Keskin v. the Netherlands, no. 2205/16, § 38, 19 January 2021).

• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 74209/16

  WILLEMS ET GORJON c. BELGIQUE

  Elle a également constaté que le droit interne belge ne s'opposait pas par principe à une réouverture de la procédure en cas de radiation de l'affaire de son rôle sur base d'une déclaration unilatérale du Gouvernement (paragraphe 19 de la décision précitée, cité au paragraphe 20 ci-dessus ; comparer avec des affaires où la Cour a refusé de rayer l'affaire du rôle au motif qu'une déclaration unilatérale ne constituait pas une base suffisamment certaine pour obtenir la réouverture de la procédure interne, par exemple Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT, précité, §§ 36-41, Romic et autres c. Croatie, nos 22238/13 et 6 autres, §§ 84-87, 14 mai 2020, et Keskin c. Pays-Bas, no 2205/16, §§ 30-32, 19 janvier 2021).
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 15983/21

  HANUSA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  However, the case at hand does not concern a complaint about unfairness of the proceedings, in respect of which the Court in principle does not accept a unilateral declaration if the applicants seek a reopening of the proceedings at the domestic level and if it is not certain whether he would have that possibility after the Government's unilateral declaration (see, for example, Aviakompaniya A.T.I, ZAT v. Ukraine, no. 1006/07, §§ 36-41, 5 October 2017; Romic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22238/13 and 6 others, §§ 84-87, 14 May 2020; and Keskin v. the Netherlands, no. 2205/16, §§ 30-32, 19 January 2021).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 35366/15

  TARTOUSI c. ROUMANIE

  Or, dans une situation où l'accusation s'appuie sur une telle déclaration de témoin et où le tribunal peut s'en servir pour étayer un verdict de culpabilité, l'intérêt de la défense à pouvoir faire interroger le témoin concerné en sa présence doit être présumé et, à ce titre, constitue toute la raison requise pour accéder à une demande de la défense tendant à convoquer ce témoin (Keskin c. Pays-Bas, no 2205/16, §§ 45 et 56, 19 janvier 2021).
• VG Hannover, 28.01.2019 - 5 A 6040/16

  Abdul Whid al Nur; exilpolitische Aktivitäten; SLM; Sudan; sudanesisch

  Auch das erkennende Gericht hat in seinem Urteil vom 24.05.2017 (5 A 2205/16) unter Berücksichtigung einer Auskunft des Auswärtigen Amtes u.a. zu Mitgliedern der Umma-Partei von 22.06.2012 zur Frage der Identifizierbarkeit ausgeführt, dass es maßgeblich darauf ankomme, inwiefern Äußerungen im Internet und in Printmedien im Sudan Widerhall gefunden hätten.
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 61125/19

  SAFSSAFI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, 20 January 2009; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 38-51, ECHR 2015; and Keskin v. the Netherlands, no. 2205/16, §§ 38-51, 19 January 2021.
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 32997/15

  BULIC v. CROATIA

  Accordingly, the procedure for reopening proceedings, the most appropriate way of redressing the violation alleged in the present case, would not be available were the Court to accept the Government's unilateral declaration (compare also Keskin v. the Netherlands, no. 2205/16, §§ 28-32, 19 January 2021 with further references; and contrast Alic v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 39158/21, 23 May 2023, concerning the newly introduced possibility to seek reopening of criminal proceedings on the basis of the Court's strike-out decisions).
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 34507/16

  ÇALISKAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The general principles concerning the right to examine witnesses have been summarised 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, §§ 38-51, ECHR 2015), and Keskin v. the Netherlands (no. 2205/16, §§ 38-51, 19 January 2021).