Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 2 EMRK; Art. 3 EMRK; Art. 8 EMRK
  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot bei Beweismitteln, die unter Verstoß gegen Art. 3 EMRK gewonnen worden sind; Gesamtbetrachtung; Unschuldsvermutung; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit); Folterverbot

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAROUTYOUNIAN c. ARMENIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-1 (autre grief) Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 (other complaint) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 36549/03
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

Wird zitiert von ... (41)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 38, p. 13, § 23).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  In the case of Schenk v. Switzerland (judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, pp. 29-30, § 48), the Court found no violation of Article 6 since the unlawfully obtained evidence was not the only evidence proving the applicant's guilt.
• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 59109/00

  JOVANOVIC contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  The Court recalls that in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, the Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with regard to that Party (see, among many other authorities, Jovanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 59109/00, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Any other conclusion would only serve to legitimate indirectly the sort of morally reprehensible conduct which the authors of Article 3 of the Convention sought to proscribe or, in other words, to 'afford brutality the cloak of law" (see, as the most recent authority, Jalloh v. Germany (GC), no. 54810/00, §§ 99 and 105, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

  Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

  Die Feststellungen des Gerichtshofs in den Rechtssachen J. (…a.a.O., Rdnrn. 99 und 104-107) und Harutyunyan ./. Armenien (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36549/03, Rdnr. 63, ECHR 2007-VIII) deuteten in die gleiche Richtung.
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 8139/09

  Othman (Abu Qatada) ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  P.E. and G.K. also show that Article 15 applies to "any statement" which is established to have been made as a result of torture, not only those made by the accused (see also, in this respect Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 59, ECHR 2007-VIII and Mthembu v. The State, case no. 379/2007, [2008] ZASCA 51, quoted in Gäfgen, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 30.06.2008 - 22978/05

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Fortwirkung von Verstößen gegen die …

  Oktober 2006; und Harutyunyan ./. Armenien , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36549/03, Rdnr. 63, ECHR 2007-...).

 
• EGMR - 36742/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  There was no material difference between the rules of evidence in the United States and the United Kingdom in respect of evidence obtained indirectly by torture and this Court's judgments in Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-... and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, ECHR 2007-... did not assist the applicant.

  "[Counsel for the applicant] also drew our attention to the decision of the ECtHR in Harutyunyan v Armenia (application number 36549/03) a judgment dated 28th June 2007, in which the court was concerned with a confession and witness statements obtained in violation of Article 3. Jalloh was referred to and the court concluded, at paragraph 63, that:.

  Is there a real risk that evidence obtained directly or indirectly by torture, ill-treatment or threat of ill-treatment would be used in criminal proceedings against the applicant? If so, would it be a flagrant denial of justice and a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 103-108, ECHR 2006-...; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-...)?.

• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 33376/07

  PIRUZYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes in respect of the alleged food and travel expenses that these do not concern any pecuniary loss incurred by the applicant and are expenses allegedly borne by his family members, who were not applicants in the present case and cannot therefore be regarded as persons directly affected by the violations found (see Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 71, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 31454/10

  CWIK v. POLAND

  The Court, however, reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Içöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 99 and 104; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-III; and Gäfgen, cited above, § 165).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07

  BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Moreover, this Court's judgments in Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-... and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, ECHR 2007-... did not assist the fourth applicant.
• VG Schwerin, 19.01.2012 - 8 A 288/10

  Abschiebungsverbot wegen drohender Folter und Mißhandlungen in Armenien

  EGMR, Beschl. v. 28. Juni 2007 - 36549/03 -, juris = StRR 8/2007 (Bearbeiter: Sommer).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Furthermore, different considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence recovered by a measure found to be in breach of Article 3. The admission into the case file of statements obtained as a result of a violation of Article 3 renders the proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, in breach of Article 6 (see Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-VIII; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99 and 105, ECHR 2006-IX, and Fidanci v. Turkey, no. 17730/07, § 34, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 40233/07

  KALNENIENE c. BELGIQUE

  De fait, comme l'ont souligné les juges Kalaydjieva, Pinto de Albuquerque et Turkovic dans leur opinion concordante en l'affaire Dvorski c. Croatie ([GC], no 25703/11, arrêt du 20 octobre 2015), la Cour a déjà énoncé une règle d'exclusion automatique des aveux recueillis en violation de l'article 3 et des preuves matérielles directement obtenues par la torture (Jalloh c. Allemagne [GC], no 54810/00, §§ 99 et 105, CEDH 2006-IX, Haroutyounian c. Arménie, no 36549/03, § 63, CEDH 2007-III, Gäfgen c. Allemagne [GC], no 22978/05, § 176, CEDH 2010).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 13642/06

  RYABTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  SOROKINS AND SOROKINA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

  SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  KAÇIU AND KOTORRI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 13216/05

  CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 49020/08

  MYASNIK MALKHASYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  TANGIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06

  CESNIEKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 40852/05

  SHLYCHKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 2807/04

  GLADYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 36892/05

  N. B. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 17332/03

  LEVINTA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 35989/14

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  NASAKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  STANIMIROVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 75330/01

  SHARKUNOV AND MEZENTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 54261/13

  DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 57574/13

  LEVINTA V. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 81535/12

  KILIÇASLAN AND SOGUKPINAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 10688/12

  SEVIM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 75297/11

  ÇADIRCI AND KÖMÜRCÜ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 5592/10

  UYANIK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 37537/07

  HAJRULAHU v.
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 55650/07

  AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05

  ALCHAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 14899/04

  BABKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 9935/06

  NALBANDYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 12042/09

  MOSTIPAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 8019/12

  GÜNGÜ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 30685/05

  BARAN AND HUN v. TURKEY