Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,7980
EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08 (https://dejure.org/2016,7980)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.04.2016 - 22574/08 (https://dejure.org/2016,7980)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. April 2016 - 22574/08 (https://dejure.org/2016,7980)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,7980) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

    Remainder inadmissible;No 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 - Witnesses) (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

    CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    In that respect the present case differs from a number of cases the Court has dealt with where the defendant in criminal proceedings had not been heard by an appellate jurisdiction since no oral hearing had been held at all (see Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 7, 10 March 2009; Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, § 10, 21 September 2010; and García Hernández v. Spain, no. 15256/07, § 8, 16 November 2010), had not been heard in person regardless of the hearing having taken place (see Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, § 10, 22 November 2011) or had been able to address the court but had not been heard during the trial (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Popa and Tanasescu v. Romania, no. 19946/04, §§ 28 and 50, 10 April 2012).

    However, where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by an accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see, among many others, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 32, Series A no. 134; Constantinescu v. Romania no. 28871/95, § 55; Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 22, 29 September 2009; Sinichkin v. Russia, no. 20508/03, § 32, 8 April 2010; Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, §§ 36 and 38, 22 November 2011; Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 32, 4 June 2013; Vaduva v. Romania no. 27781/06 § 37, 25 February 2014; and Gómez Olmeda v. Spain, no. 61112/12, § 35, 29 March 2016).

  • EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 10890/04

    HANU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    It is true that the Court has found that one of the requirements of a fair trial is the possibility for the accused to confront the witnesses in the presence of a judge who must ultimately decide the case, because the judge's observations on the demeanour and credibility of a certain witness may have consequences for the accused (see Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013).

    However, where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by an accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see, among many others, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 32, Series A no. 134; Constantinescu v. Romania no. 28871/95, § 55; Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 22, 29 September 2009; Sinichkin v. Russia, no. 20508/03, § 32, 8 April 2010; Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, §§ 36 and 38, 22 November 2011; Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 32, 4 June 2013; Vaduva v. Romania no. 27781/06 § 37, 25 February 2014; and Gómez Olmeda v. Spain, no. 61112/12, § 35, 29 March 2016).

  • EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 23002/07

    LACADENA CALERO c. ESPAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    In that respect the present case differs from a number of cases the Court has dealt with where the defendant in criminal proceedings had not been heard by an appellate jurisdiction since no oral hearing had been held at all (see Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 7, 10 March 2009; Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, § 10, 21 September 2010; and García Hernández v. Spain, no. 15256/07, § 8, 16 November 2010), had not been heard in person regardless of the hearing having taken place (see Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, § 10, 22 November 2011) or had been able to address the court but had not been heard during the trial (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Popa and Tanasescu v. Romania, no. 19946/04, §§ 28 and 50, 10 April 2012).

    However, where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by an accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see, among many others, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 32, Series A no. 134; Constantinescu v. Romania no. 28871/95, § 55; Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 22, 29 September 2009; Sinichkin v. Russia, no. 20508/03, § 32, 8 April 2010; Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, §§ 36 and 38, 22 November 2011; Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 32, 4 June 2013; Vaduva v. Romania no. 27781/06 § 37, 25 February 2014; and Gómez Olmeda v. Spain, no. 61112/12, § 35, 29 March 2016).

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 19946/04

    POPA AND TANASESCU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    In that respect the present case differs from a number of cases the Court has dealt with where the defendant in criminal proceedings had not been heard by an appellate jurisdiction since no oral hearing had been held at all (see Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 7, 10 March 2009; Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, § 10, 21 September 2010; and García Hernández v. Spain, no. 15256/07, § 8, 16 November 2010), had not been heard in person regardless of the hearing having taken place (see Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, § 10, 22 November 2011) or had been able to address the court but had not been heard during the trial (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Popa and Tanasescu v. Romania, no. 19946/04, §§ 28 and 50, 10 April 2012).

    Any derogation from this principle should be exceptional and subject to restrictive interpretation (see, notably, Popa and Tanasescu v. Romania, no. 19946/04, § 46, 10 April 2012).

  • EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95

    PESTI AND FRODL v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I (extracts); Kristjansson and Boasson v. Iceland (dec.), no. 24945/04, 10 April 2007; and Dorado Baúlde v. Spain (dec.), no. 23486/12, 1 September 2015).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 24945/04

    KRISTJANSSON AND BOASSON v. ICELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I (extracts); Kristjansson and Boasson v. Iceland (dec.), no. 24945/04, 10 April 2007; and Dorado Baúlde v. Spain (dec.), no. 23486/12, 1 September 2015).
  • EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

    Oberschlick ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    Such a waiver on the part of the applicant must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 51, Series A no. 204, and Popovici v. Moldova, cited above, § 73).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 23486/12

    DORADO BAÚLDE v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I (extracts); Kristjansson and Boasson v. Iceland (dec.), no. 24945/04, 10 April 2007; and Dorado Baúlde v. Spain (dec.), no. 23486/12, 1 September 2015).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

    H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    In addition, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A; Hermi, cited above, § 73; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
    While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national legislation and the domestic courts (see, amongst others, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

    VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 15256/07

    GARCIA HERNANDEZ c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

    LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

    KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

    MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

    EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

    MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69264/01

    DE LORENZO contre l'ITALIE

  • EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

    KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

  • EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

    KARPENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17122/07

    MARCOS BARRIOS c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

    Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

    The Court has held that in the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 37, 26 April 2016; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A), and that the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 66580/12

    BIVOLARU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)

    Les modalités d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention en appel dépendent des particularités de la procédure dont il s'agit: il faut prendre en compte l'ensemble du procès mené dans l'ordre juridique interne et le rôle qu'y a joué la juridiction d'appel (Kashlev c. Estonie, no 22574/08, § 38, 26 avril 2016 et Marcello Viola c. Italie, no 45106/04, § 54, CEDH 2006-XI (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 63446/13

    LOREFICE c. ITALIE

    Lorsqu'une instance d'appel est amenée à connaître d'une affaire en fait et en droit et à étudier dans son ensemble la question de la culpabilité ou de l'innocence, elle ne peut, pour des motifs d'équité du procès, décider de ces questions sans appréciation directe des moyens de preuve (Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, § 55, CEDH 2000-VIII, Popovici c. Moldova, nos 289/04 et 41194/04, § 68, 27 novembre 2007, Marcos Barrios c. Espagne, no 17122/07, § 32, 21 septembre 2010, Dan, précité, § 30, Lazu c. République de Moldova, no 46182/08, § 40, 5 juillet 2016, Manoli c. République de Moldova, no 56875/11, § 32, 28 février 2017, et, a contrario, Kashlev c. Estonia, no 22574/08, §§ 48-50, 26 avril 2016).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 1250/15

    BOLMANDÎR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    The difference in the first instance's and the appeal court's conclusions mainly resulted from the courts' different interpretation of the same facts (see, mutatis mutandis, Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 48, 26 April 2016).
  • EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 78108/14

    PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

    Rappel des principes 58. La Cour rappelle que les modalités d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention en appel dépendent des particularités de la procédure dont il s'agit: il faut prendre en compte l'ensemble du procès mené dans l'ordre juridique interne et le rôle qu'y a joué la juridiction d'appel (Kashlev c. Estonie, no 22574/08, § 38, 26 avril 2016 et Marcello Viola c. Italie, no 45106/04, § 54, CEDH 2006-XI (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 55517/14

    VILCHES CORONADO ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

    Il convient également de relever que, en l'espèce, les requérants, qui ont bénéficié de l'assistance d'un avocat, avaient pris connaissance du contenu du recours formulé par le ministère public et l'avocat de l'État et, bien qu'ils aient été conscients des prérogatives de l'Audiencia quant à sa capacité d'annuler le jugement d'acquittement, ils n'ont pas demandé l'audition des témoins lors de l'audience devant la juridiction d'appel (voir Kashlev c. Estonie, no 22574/08, § 46, 26 avril 2016 et, a contrario, Destrehem c. France, no 56651/00, §§ 45-47, 18 mai 2004).
  • EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 49229/15

    GAL c. ROUMANIE

    Il convient également de souligner que la requérante avait insisté à ce que ce témoin soit convoqué et interrogé sur les déclarations qu'il avait faites devant les enquêteurs (paragraphes 2 et 4 ci-dessus) et qu'elle n'avait jamais renoncé à son droit de faire interroger ce témoin (voir, a contrario, Kashlev c. Estonie, no 22574/08, § 51, 26 avril 2016).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 55724/19

    DRACA v. CROATIA

    In that connection the Court reiterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his or her own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial, if such waiver is established in an unequivocal manner and attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII; Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 45, 26 April 2016; and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 117-118, 18 December 2018).
  • EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 55116/12

    OVIDIU CRISTIAN STOICA c. ROUMANIE

    En particulier, lorsqu'une instance de recours est amenée à connaître d'une affaire en fait et en droit et à étudier dans son ensemble la question de la culpabilité ou de l'innocence, elle ne peut, pour des motifs d'équité de la procédure, décider de ces questions sans appréciation directe des témoignages présentés en personne soit par l'accusé qui soutient qu'il n'a pas commis l'acte tenu pour une infraction pénale (voir, entre autres, Ekbatani c. Suède, 26 mai 1988, § 32, série A no 134 ; Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, § 55, CEDH 2000-VIII ; Dondarini c. Saint-Marin, no 50545/99, § 27, 6 juillet 2004 ; Igual Coll c. Espagne, no 37496/04, § 27, 10 mars 2009 ; voir également, a contrario, Kashlev c. Estonie, no 22574/08, §§ 48-50, 26 avril 2016), soit par les témoins ayant déposé pendant la procédure et aux déclarations desquels elle souhaite donner une nouvelle interprétation (voir, par exemple, Dan c. Moldova, no 8999/07, §§ 30-35, 5 juillet 2011 ; Gaitanaru, précité, §§ 29-36 ; et Hogea c. Roumanie, no 31912/04, §§ 49-54, 29 octobre 2013).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 22036/10

    CHIPER c. ROUMANIE

    Elle doit examiner si la procédure considérée dans son ensemble, y compris le mode de présentation des moyens de preuve, a revêtu un caractère équitable (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Teixeira de Castro c. Portugal, 9 juin 1998, § 34, Recueil 1998-IV, et Kashlev c. Estonie, no 22574/08, § 39, 26 avril 2016).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 22369/15

    GODÎNCA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 20903/15

    MAESTRI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 15931/15

    DI MARTINO ET MOLINARI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18550/13

    MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 16033/12

    HERNANDEZ ROYO c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 25598/18

    STOICU c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 78458/14

    SELAMET c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34009/18

    GHEORGHE ET DRAGOMIR c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 68964/13

    MUJEA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59076/08

    A.C. v. LITHUANIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht