Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,22068
EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12 (https://dejure.org/2019,22068)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.07.2019 - 74845/12 (https://dejure.org/2019,22068)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Juli 2019 - 74845/12 (https://dejure.org/2019,22068)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,22068) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ÜREK AND ÜREK v. TURKEY

    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 - Examination of 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 ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 5865/07

    BUTKEVICH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12
    As the Court held in Butkevich v. Russia (no. 5865/07, § 98, 13 February 2018) there is no material difference between a deposition given by a "witness", for instance, and a report issued by a police officer for the attention of his superior.
  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12
    As such, the guarantees provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention apply to a deposition which may serve to a material degree as the basis for a conviction (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 41, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

    SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12
    29900/96 and 3 others, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12
    The Court reiterates that paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken together with paragraph 3 requires the Contracting States to take positive steps, in particular to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2013 - 22163/08

    MESESNEL v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12
    In view of the above case-law, the Court considers that the police officers in the instant case should be considered as "witnesses", particular regard being had to the fact that it was the trial court which summoned them to give evidence in their capacity as witnesses to the offences with which the applicants were charged in view of the conflicting accounts of the factual circumstances of the case (see Mesesnel v. Slovenia, no. 22163/08, § 37, 28 February 2013).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 56396/12

    PEREIRA CRUZ ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12
    This is so because Article 6 § 3 (d) enshrines the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all evidence against him must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, which is a clear indication of the principle of immediacy in the criminal proceedings (see Pereira Cruz and Others v. Portugal, nos. 56396/12 and 3 others, § 177, 26 June 2018).
  • EGMR - 35054/22 (anhängig)

    GÖRGEL v. TÜRKIYE

    The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his inability to examine witness B.T. in person before the trial court (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, 30 July 2019, and Süleyman v. Turkey no. 59453/10, 17 November 2020).

    a) Was the applicant able to examine the witness against him (namely, B.T.), as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, 30 July 2019, and Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, 17 November 2020)?.

  • EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 37404/18

    OGUZ v. TÜRKIYE

    The procedural imbalance in the present case was further exacerbated when the trial court examined the anonymous witness in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer, but in the presence of the public prosecutor (compare also Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, §§ 52 and 63, 30 July 2019).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 23158/20

    MAKARASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    It recalls that the notion of a "witness" is an autonomous concept in the Convention system, irrespective of the classifications in domestic legal systems (see Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, § 50, 30 July 2019).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

    FAYSAL PAMUK v. TURKEY

    The Court has already held that the same principles will be applicable in respect of the examination of a witness in the course of the trial, including the relevant modalities thereof (see Chernika v. Ukraine, no. 53791/11, § 46, 12 March 2020; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, § 49, 30 July 2019; and Cherpion v. Belgium (dec.), no. 47158/11, §§ 35-41, 9 May 2017).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62013/12

    ÇONGAR AND KALA v. TURKEY

    The Court thus awards the applicants EUR 5, 000 each under this head, plus any taxes that may be chargeable to them (see Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, § 78, 30 July 2019).
  • EGMR - 52544/18 (anhängig)

    HINDIOGLU v. TURKEY

    The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine the witnesses whose identities were protected (three police officers) in person before the trial court (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; and Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, 30 July 2019).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32043/11

    ORAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    The Court thus awards the third applicant EUR 5, 000 under this head, plus any taxes that may be chargeable to him (see Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, § 78, 30 July 2019).
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