Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRIVOSHAPKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  Finally, the Court reiterates that the possibility certainly exists that a higher or the highest court might, in some circumstances, make reparation for defects that took place in the first-instance proceedings (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, § 33).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  Personal impartiality is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 25, § 58).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  R., M.Kh., M.M., and P., the victims, in this case should for the purposes of Article 6 § 3 (d) be regarded as "witnesses", a term to be given an autonomous interpretation (see Asch, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25), because their written depositions made during the pre-trial investigation were read out in court and used as evidence against the applicant.
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  "50....in relation to Article 6 § 1 and in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, [the Court] has found doubts as to impartiality to be objectively justified where there is some confusion between the functions of prosecutor and judge (see, with regard to Article 6 § 1, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 35-38, ECHR 2000-X, and, regarding Article 5 § 3, Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp. 11-12, §§ 20-22; Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, pp. 17-18, §§ 41-43 ; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3298-99, §§ 146-50).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  The Court reiterates that it is of fundamental importance in a democratic society that the courts inspire confidence in the public and above all, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, in the accused (see Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 27).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  As a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statements or at a later stage (see Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 51, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  "50....in relation to Article 6 § 1 and in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, [the Court] has found doubts as to impartiality to be objectively justified where there is some confusion between the functions of prosecutor and judge (see, with regard to Article 6 § 1, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 35-38, ECHR 2000-X, and, regarding Article 5 § 3, Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp. 11-12, §§ 20-22; Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, pp. 17-18, §§ 41-43 ; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3298-99, §§ 146-50).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  The Court reiterates, finally, that the conviction must not rest solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 22, Series A no. 242-A; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A; Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, p. 13, § 35 in fine; and Solakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, § 57 in fine, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  The Court reiterates, finally, that the conviction must not rest solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 22, Series A no. 242-A; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A; Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, p. 13, § 35 in fine; and Solakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, § 57 in fine, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 28232/22

  FIGURKA v. UKRAINE

  The absence of a prosecuting party at an oral hearing may raise an issue under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention since it may give rise to doubts about the court's objective impartiality by leading the court to take up the prosecution's case and may cause difficulty in the exercise of the defendant's rights to be informed of "the nature and cause of the accusation", to have "adequate time and facilities" for the preparation of defence and by undermining the defendant's ability to put forward an adequate defence in adversarial proceedings (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson, cited above, §§ 16-20 and 46-54; Weh and Weh v. Austria ((dec.), no. 38544/97, 4 July 2002; Ozerov v. Russia, no. 64962/01, §§ 51-58, 18 May 2010; Krivoshapkin v. Russia, no. 42224/02, §§ 41-46, 27 January 2011; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 116-20, 30 May 2013; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-84, 20 September 2016; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 82-84, 13 February 2018; Mikhaylova v. Ukraine, no. 10644/08, §§ 61-70, 6 March 2018; Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, nos.