Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HANU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Hanu v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (35)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 10890/04

  Moreover, a complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 10890/04

  Referring to the cases of Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000-VIII) and Danila v. Romania (no. 53897/00, 8 March 2007), he complained that the Court of Appeal had not heard him or the witnesses and that his conviction had been based on the same evidence that had led to his being acquitted by the court of first instance.
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 10890/04

  Moreover, although it is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to call a witness, exceptional circumstances could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08

  KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

  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, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

  Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

  As the Court has held on many occasions, one of the requirements of a fair trial is the possibility for the accused to confront the witnesses in the presence of the 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 with further references).
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 27781/06

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that 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 the applicant's 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, cited above, § 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; and Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 32, 4 June 2013).

  An examination must be made of the role of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the nature of the issues which it was called upon to try (see Popa and Tanasescu, cited above, § 47, and Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 34, 4 June 2013).

• EGMR, 01.09.2026 - 30395/20

  BRUNELL v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Rn. 67 By contrast, in the present case the applicants' conviction rested to a decisive extent on the statements of witness X, whose credibility they had consistently challenged and whom the first-instance court had expressly found to be unreliable (compare with Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013; and contrast with Ignat, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14364/06

  [ENG]

  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 the applicant's 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, cited above, § 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; and Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 32, 4 June 2013).

  Accordingly, in order to determine whether there was a violation of Article 6 in the instant case, an examination must be made of the role of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the nature of the issues which it was called upon to try (see Popa and Tanasescu, cited above, § 47, and Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 34, 4 June 2013).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 46182/08

  LAZU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In this connection, it notes that Article 4641 of the Moldovan Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the possibility of a retrial or reopening of the domestic proceedings where the Court has found a violation of an applicant's fundamental rights and freedoms (see Flueraş v. Romania, cited above, § 70, 9 April 2013; and Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 50, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 88/05

  DANILOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court thus finds that the applicant clearly indicated to the national courts that he wished to have the expert witnesses examined before the court in order to challenge their credibility and conclusions (see, mutatis mutandis, Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013, and Avagyan v. Armenia, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 23369/16

  JAUPI v. ALBANIA

  Rn. 144 The Court reiterates that a witness statement taken by the judicial police cannot be regarded as a substitute for the applicant's right to cross-examine that witness in the presence of the trial judge, who will ultimately adjudicate on the question of his or her guilt (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 155; see also Hümmer v. Germany, no. 26171/07, § 48, 19 July 2012; Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013 in fine; and Dadayan v. Armenia, no. 14078/12, § 46, 6 September 2018; see also, mutatis mutandis, Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, §§ 70-71, 18 January 2022).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 57575/14

  DAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  An issue related to the principle of immediacy may also arise when an appeal court overturns the decision of a lower court acquitting an applicant of criminal charges without a fresh examination of the evidence, including the hearing of witnesses and their cross-examination by the defence (Dan v. Moldova, cited above, § 33, Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013, and Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 46182/08, § 43, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 22963/08

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates 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 witness may have consequences for the accused (see Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013, and Asatryan v. Armenia, no. 3571/09, § 61, 27 April 2017).
• EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 63446/13

  LOREFICE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 17520/04

  FLUERAS AGAINST ROMANIA AND 15 OTHER CASES
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21528/09

  DRAGOMIR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 16903/12

  MOINESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 05.06.2025 - 21492/17

  CICCONE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 26134/19

  KHAVSHABOVA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 55116/12

  STOICA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 27018/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50224/07

  MISCHIE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 28.01.2025 - 56658/22

  SECARA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 74542/12

  ASIMIONESE v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18550/13

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 3571/09

  ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 56875/11

  MANOLI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.06.2023 - 44764/16

  ROCCELLA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 80278/13

  DUDAS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 80543/12

  CODREAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 1837/10

  AVAGYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  DADAYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 36470/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 13995/13 (anhängig)

  CALDAROZZI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 68708/16 (anhängig)

  GHERPELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 21668/12

  POROPAT v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 59452/09

  POTOROC c. ROUMANIE