Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DADAYAN v. ARMENIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DADAYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  The right to a fair trial holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention restrictively (see Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal, 23 October 1990, § 66, Series A no. 189, and Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 49, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10

  SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  The more important that evidence, the more weight the counterbalancing factors would have to carry in order for the proceedings as a whole to be considered fair (see Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, §§ 58 and 59, 31 March 2016).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08

  KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  Instead, the court based its conclusions on witness evidence which had never been examined (see, a contrario, Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 47, 26 April 2016).

• EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07

  POLETAN v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  The Court further reiterates that, as a general rule, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) 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 Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, § 118, and Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 26711/07, 32786/10 and 34278/10, § 81, 12 May 2016).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 47082/12

  PAIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  There are a number of reasons why a witness may not attend trial (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, §§ 120-125), including situations where the witness has proved to be untraceable (see Tseber v. the Czech Republic, no. 46203/08, § 48, 22 November 2012, and Paić v. Croatia, no. 47082/12, § 34, 29 March 2016).
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 10890/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  Turning to the use of the written testimony of the absent witnesses S.T. and H.O., the Court has held on many occasions 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 with further references).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to examine a witness (see S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-V, and Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, 20 January 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (see, among other authorities, Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158, and Dadayan v. Armenia, no. 14078/12, § 45, 6 September 2018).
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 26134/19

  KHAVSHABOVA v. GEORGIA

  In the latter respect, the Court notes that a witness statement taken in the presence of a magistrate (investigating) judge cannot in itself be regarded as a substitute for the applicant's right to examine that witness in the presence of the trial judge, who ultimately adjudicates upon 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, 25.03.2021 - 15931/15

  DI MARTINO c. ITALIE et 1 autre affaire

  La Cour rappelle à cet égard sa jurisprudence selon laquelle, lorsque les déclarations d'un témoin qui n'a pas comparu et n'a pas été interrogé pendant le procès sont utilisées à titre de preuve, il importe de rechercher s'il existait un motif sérieux justifiant la non-comparution du témoin, si la déposition du témoin absent a constitué le fondement unique ou déterminant de la condamnation, et s'il existait des éléments compensateurs, notamment des garanties procédurales solides, suffisants pour contrebalancer les difficultés causées à la défense en conséquence de l'admission d'une telle preuve et pour assurer l'équité de la procédure dans son ensemble (Al-Khawaja et Tahery c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 26766/05 et 22228/06, § 131, CEDH 2011, Schatschaschwili c. Allemagne [GC], no 9154/10, § 123, CEDH 2015, et Dadayan c. Arménie, no 14078/12, §§ 39-43, 6 septembre 2018).
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 30680/09

  KARTSIVADZE v. GEORGIA

  In this connection the Court firstly notes that there is nothing in the domestic courts' judgments to indicate that they approached the untested witness evidence with any specific caution; nor did they seem to attach less weight to those statements (compare Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, § 157; Dadayan v. Armenia, no. 14078/12, § 54, 6 September 2018; and Paić, cited above, § 43).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 58956/12

  SULA c. ITALIE

  La Cour renvoie au récent arrêt Dadayan c. Arménie (no 14078/12, §§ 39-43, 6 septembre 2018), dans lequel elle a rappelé les principes applicables lorsque les déclarations d'un témoin qui n'a pas comparu et n'a pas été interrogé pendant le procès sont utilisées à titre de preuve.