Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK; Art. 41 EMRK; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; § 96 StPO (analog); § 244 Abs. 3 Satz 2 StPO; § 261 StPO; § 359 Nr. 6 StPO
  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden Verwertung unkonfrontierter Aussagen; anonyme Zeugen: Darlegungspflichten hinsichtlich bestehender Drohungen und Gewaltanwendungen gegenüber Zeugen im "Drogenmilieu"; unmögliche Kompensation); Recht ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRASNIKI v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 51277/99
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence; 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 Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  They added that it was for the national courts to assess the evidence and that, in its case-law, the Court had repeatedly emphasised that the production of evidence primarily depended upon the domestic law and that, in principle, it was for the domestic courts to assess the facts collected by them and the weight of the evidence presented by the parties (they referred, mutatis mutandis, to Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  The Court has also had regard to its rulings, in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court, that Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention only required the possibility of cross-examining such witnesses in situations where this testimony played a main or decisive role in securing the conviction (see Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 37; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 28; Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, §§ 22-24; Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, § 44).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  The Court has also had regard to its rulings, in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court, that Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention only required the possibility of cross-examining such witnesses in situations where this testimony played a main or decisive role in securing the conviction (see Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 37; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 28; Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, §§ 22-24; Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, § 44).
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  The Court has also had regard to its rulings, in a series of cases concerning reliance on witness testimony which was not adduced before the trial court, that Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention only required the possibility of cross-examining such witnesses in situations where this testimony played a main or decisive role in securing the conviction (see Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 37; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 28; Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, §§ 22-24; Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, § 44).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  With this in mind, an applicant should not be prevented from testing the anonymous witness's reliability (see also Kostowski v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, p. 20, § 42).
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  KOK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  In its admissibility decision in the case of Kok v. the Netherlands (no. 43149/98, ECHR 2000-VI), the Court indicated that, when assessing whether the procedures followed in the questioning of an anonymous witness had been sufficient to counterbalance the difficulties caused to the defence, due weight had to be given to the extent to which the anonymous testimony had been decisive in convicting the applicant.
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  It is normally for the domestic courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (see S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-V, with further references to Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99

  It is normally for the domestic courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (see S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-V, with further references to Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89).

• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08

  TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  La Cour rappelle néanmoins que lorsqu'elle conclut que la condamnation d'un requérant a été prononcée malgré l'existence d'une atteinte potentielle aux exigences d'équité de la procédure, un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure, à la demande de l'intéressé, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi c. Italie, no 67972/01, § 86, CEDH 2004-IV ; Krasniki c. République tchèque, no 51277/99, § 93, 28 février 2006).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 1883/03

  VAQUERO HERNANDEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour relève qu'en vertu de l'article 6 § 1, les éléments de preuve doivent en principe être produits devant l'accusé en audience publique, en vue d'un débat contradictoire (Krasniki c. République tchèque, no 51277/99, 28 février 2006, § 75).
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 26073/13

  CAFAGNA c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle que, lorsqu'elle conclut que la condamnation d'un requérant a été prononcée malgré l'existence d'une atteinte aux exigences d'équité de la procédure, un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure, à la demande de l'intéressé, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi c. Italie, no 67972/01, § 86, CEDH 2004-IV, Krasniki c. République tchèque, no 51277/99, § 93, 28 février 2006, et Tseber, précité, § 75).

 
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 48628/12

  BALTA ET DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  Néanmoins, cette circonstance ne saurait dégager les juridictions internes de leur obligation de rechercher les raisons pour lesquelles le témoin s'était vu accorder l'anonymat et n'avait pas été entendu en présence de la défense (voir, en ce sens, Visser c. Pays-Bas, no 26668/95, §§ 47-48, 14 février 2002, et Krasniki c. République tchèque, no 51277/99, §§ 80-83, 28 février 2006).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  KELLY v. IRELAND

  The Court has also examined the compatibility with Article 6 of reliance on evidence from anonymous witnesses seeking protection (Doorson v. the Netherlands and Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, both cited above, as well as, more recently, Krasniki v. the Czech Republic, no. 51277/99, 28 February 2006) as well as from witnesses who were unavailable for examination during the criminal proceedings for various reasons (Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-V; and, more recently, Zentar v. France, no. 17902/02, 13 April 2006; Gossa v. Poland, no. 47986/99, 9 January 2007; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; and Mamikonyan v. Armenia, no. 25083/05, 16 March 2010).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 65400/10

  RIAHI c. BELGIQUE

  Elle rappelle cependant que lorsqu'elle conclut que la condamnation d'un requérant a été prononcée malgré l'existence d'une atteinte aux exigences d'équité de la procédure, un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure, à la demande de l'intéressé, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi c. Italie, no 67972/01, § 86, CEDH 2004-IV, Krasniki c. République tchèque, no 51277/99, § 93, 28 février 2006, et Tseber, précité, § 75).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 1993/02

  BALSAN c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  La Cour rappelle néanmoins que lorsqu'elle conclut que la condamnation d'un requérant a été prononcée malgré l'existence d'une atteinte potentielle aux exigences d'équité de la procédure, un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure, à la demande de l'intéressé, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi c. Italie, no 67972/01, § 86, CEDH 2004-IV ; Krasniki c. République tchèque, no 51277/99, § 93, 28 février 2006).