Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKEYEV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  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 statement or at a later stage (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  Such measures form part of the diligence which the Contracting States must exercise in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 are enjoyed in an effective manner" (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  While the Court is not unmindful of the difficulties encountered by the authorities in terms of resources, it does not consider that tracking down Ms M. for the purpose of calling her to attend the trial, in which the applicant stood accused of a very serious offence and risked up to twelve years" imprisonment (see paragraph 22 above), would have constituted an insuperable obstacle (see Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 44, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  Furthermore, as Ms M."s and Ms K."s statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe their demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of their reliability (see, by contrast, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 54789/00

  BOCOS-CUESTA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  In this regard the Court reiterates that the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention, in so far as permissible, must be established in an unequivocal manner (see Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands, no. 54789/00, § 65, 10 November 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

  MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  It further notes that in several previous cases dealing with analogous situations the Court had regard to various factual and legal circumstances in reaching the conclusion that the applicants had either waived (see, for example, Khametshin v. Russia, no. 18487/03, § 41, 4 March 2010; Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others, § 87, 12 May 2016; and Palchik, cited above, § 36) or not waived the right to examine a witness (see, for example, Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands, no. 54789/00, § 66, 10 November 2005; Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 37, 5 February 2009; and Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 85, 10 April 2012).

  Compare Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 37, 5 February 2009, and Khametshin v. Russia, no. 18487/03, § 41, 4 March 2010.

• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, as the witnesses' statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe the witnesses' demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of their reliability (see, for similar reasoning, Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 42, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, as the witnesses" statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe their demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of their reliability (see, for similar reasoning, Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 42, 5 February 2009).

• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  S.'s presence was of crucial importance to enable the court to make an effective assessment of his demeanour and of the reliability of his deposition (see Hulki Günes v. Turkey, no. 28490/95, § 92, ECHR 2003-VII (extracts); Vladimir Romanov, cited above, § 105; and Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, §§ 41-42 and 45, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08

  [FRE]

  Or, une telle possibilité ne semble pas être prévue par le droit tchèque (pour l'absence d'enregistrement, voir, par exemple, Makeïev c. Russie, no 13769/04, § 42, 5 février 2009 ; Salikhov c. Russie, no 23880/05, § 118, 3 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23880/05

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, as Ms K."s statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe her demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of her reliability (compare Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 42, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 21731/03

  [ENG]

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see, most recently, Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, §§ 34-35, 5 February 2009, and, as a leading authority, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08

  [ENG]

  He was, thus, in a place within the exclusive knowledge and control of the authorities of the State (see Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 45, 5 February 2009, and Rudnichenko v. Ukraine, no. 2775/07, § 107, 11 July 2013).
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 26134/19

  KHAVSHABOVA v. GEORGIA

  Moreover, the applicant complained before the domestic courts about her inability to examine those witnesses at trial and eventually requested that their pre-trial evidence be declared inadmissible (see ibid. Contrast Murtazaliyeva, cited above, §§ 123 and 126; compare Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 37, 5 February 2009, Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 85, 10 April 2012, and Palchik v. Ukraine, no. 16980/06, § 36, 2 March 2017).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 33780/04

  [ENG]

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; Makeyev v. Russia, no. 13769/04, § 35, 5 February 2009; and Samoshenkov and Strokov, cited above, § 75).
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  KHAMETSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 27100/03

  YEVGENIY IVANOV v. RUSSIA