Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
Z. v. LATVIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
- EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02
SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
The Government drew the Court's attention to the case of Jan C.R.R. Scheper v. the Netherlands (no. 39209/02, decision of 5 April 2005), the circumstances of which were similar to the instant case and where the Court found that since "it proved to be impossible to ensure the attendance of the witnesses, it was open to the court to consider their statements to be corroborated by other evidence" and dismissed the application as manifestly ill-founded.However, impossibilium nulla obligatio est; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005 and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).
- EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
The Government reiterated that "the admissibility of evidence is primarily governed by the rules of domestic law, and that, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them; the task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair" (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 26).As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when he was making his statements or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 27, and more recently, Klimentyev v. Russia, no. 46503/99, § 124, 16 November 2006).
- EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
The Government drew a distinction between the present case and the case of Lavents v. Latvia (no. 58442/00, judgment of 28 November 2002).The Court recalls the general principles established by its case-law with respect to the length of detention on remand (see Estrikh, cited above, §§ 113, 114 and 118-120, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 58-64, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts) and Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002, §§ 70 and 71).
- EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
ESTRIKH v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Latvijas Kriminalprocesa Kodekss), applicable at the material time (in force until 1 October 2005), are found in the Estrikh v. Latvia judgment (no. 73819/01, 18 January 2007, paragraphs 54, 55, 59 and 62-64).The Court first of all refers to the general principles established by its case-law as regards exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, 18 January 2007, §§ 92-94,).
- EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01
Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
However, impossibilium nulla obligatio est; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005 and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005). - EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
However, impossibilium nulla obligatio est; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005 and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005). - EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00
Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
With respect to statements of witnesses who proved to be unavailable for questioning in the presence of the defendant or his counsel, the Court recalls that paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken together with paragraph 3 requires the Contracting States to take positive steps so as to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see, Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII) and - in the event that the impossibility of examining witnesses or having them examined is due to the fact that they are missing - the authorities must take reasonable efforts to secure their presence (see Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 25, 13 November 2003, and Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 43, 8 June 2006). - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
As to the applicant's request to subject the victim to new psychological and psychiatric tests two years after the first tests were carried out (paragraph 50, above), the Court reiterates that Article 6, while it guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
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 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 Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II and Solakov v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X). - EKMR, 14.07.1970 - 4078/69
X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
The Government referred also to the case X. v. Germany (no. 4078/69, Commission decision of July 1970) in this respect and reiterated that Article 6 does not grant to an accused an unlimited right to secure the appearance of witnesses in court; it is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (see S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-V). - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01
SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00
KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 67275/01
CISTIAKOV c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 59913/00
VASILEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 3992/02
VOGINS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 59129/00
TIBBLING v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02
KAPITONOVS v. LATVIA
v. Latvia, no. 14755/03, 24 January 2008; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos. - EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 65014/01
PACULA c. LETTONIE
c. Lettonie (no 14755/03, § 94, 24 janvier 2008).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 73443/01, 76843/01, 3992/02, 14755/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FREIMANIS ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA LETTONIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FREIMANIS AND 3 OTHER CASES AGAINST LATVIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 73443/01
- EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 73443/01
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 73443/01, 76843/01, 3992/02, 14755/03
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 3992/02
VOGINS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 73443/01
Application No. 3992/02, judgment of 1 February 2007, final on 1 May 2007,.Vogins (3992/02).
- EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 76843/01
NAZARENKO c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 73443/01
Application No. 76843/01, judgment of 1 February 2007, final on 1 May 2007,.Nazarenko (76843/01).
- EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 73443/01
Freimanis and Līdums: The case concerns criminal proceedings relating to the activities of the applicants, a former chairman of largest Latvian bank (Banka Baltija) and one of its directors, as well as the chairman of the board of this bank who was also an applicant in an earlier case (Lavents v. Latvia, application no. 58442/00). - KAG Aachen, 07.02.2006 - 30/05
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 73443/01
Paid on 30/05/2008.
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00
KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE
Dans certains cas, elle peut également revêtir la forme d'autres mesures impliquant un tel reproche et entraînant elles aussi des « répercussions importantes sur la situation'du suspect (voir, par exemple, Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie, nos 73443/01 et 74860/01, § 106, 9 février 2006, et la jurisprudence y citée). - EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 30323/02
PANDJIKIDZE ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE
L'intéressé ne saurait donc se plaindre d'un manque de diligence des autorités à cet égard, manque auquel il contribua lui-même par sa propre inaction (mutatis mutandis, Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie (déc.), nos 73443/01 et 74860/01, 30 janvier 2003 ; Hussin c. Belgique (déc.), no 70807/01, mai 2004). - EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 22962/15
MOOHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
c. Lettonie, no 14755/03, 24 janvier 2008, Niedzwiedz c. Pologne (déc.), no 1345/06, 11 mars 2008, et McLean et Cole, décision précitée, § 32).
- EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 40032/08
[FRE]
Επ&omikron;µÎνως, τ&omikron; Δικαστήρι&omikron; θεωρεί ότι &omikron; πρ&omikron;σφεÏγων Îδειξε κάπ&omikron;ια αµÎλεια επειδή παρÎλειψε να βεβαιωθεί ότι είχαν πραγµατ&omikron;π&omikron;ιηθεί όλες &omikron;ι ενÎργειες &omikron;ι σχετικÎς µε την πραγµατική µεταβίβαση κυριότητας και Îτσι τώρα δεν µπ&omikron;ρεί να παραπ&omikron;νείται για µια κατάσταση στην δηµι&omikron;υργία της &omikron;π&omikron;ίας συνÎβαλε &omikron; ίδι&omikron;ς µε την αδράνειά τ&omikron;υ (Freimanis et Lidums κατά Λεττ&omikron;νίας, αρ. 73443/01 και 47860/01, 9 Φεβρ&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2006, Hussin κατά Βελγί&omikron;υ (déc.), αρ. - EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 36064/07
[FRE]
Quant aux mesures préventives appliquées au requérant ultérieurement, la Cour a déjà jugé qu'elles ne constituaient pas une « privation de liberté'au sens de l'article 5 § 1 (voir Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie, nos 73443/01 et 74860/01, § 87, 9 février 2006). - EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 26181/06
[FRE]
Les requérants ne peuvent dès lors se plaindre d'une situation qu'ils ont eux-mêmes contribué à créer par leur propre inaction (Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie (déc.), no 73443/01, 30 janvier 2003 et McDonald c. France (déc.), no 18648/04, 29 avril 2008). - EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 30439/02
GERGIN c. TURQUIE
En conséquence, dans les circonstances du présent cas, il ne peut plus soutenir la qualité de victime (Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie, nos 73443/01 et 74860/01, § 68, 9 février 2006 ; Koç et Tambas c. Turquie, (déc.), no 46947/99, 24 février 2005 ; Hünkar Demirel c. Turquie, no 11584/03, (déc.), 24 mai 2007 ; Tapkan et autres, précité).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
Z. v. LATVIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 2+13, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buch... st. d, Art. 13, Art. 6+13, Art. 7, Art. 8, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+6 Abs. 2, Art. 14+8, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
- EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96
Schießbefehl
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
It must rather consider, from the standpoint of Article 7 § 1, whether the applicant's acts, at the time when they were committed, constituted an offence defined with sufficient accessibility and foreseeability by domestic law (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 51, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
Regarding the applicant's allegations that his defence counsel defended him in an ineffective manner, the Court recalls that the conduct of a lawyer does not per se engage the responsibility of the State and that the competent authorities are only required to intervene when failure by legal aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65). - EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
The Court recalls that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 requires, inter alia, that when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 September 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 33, § 77).
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79
Minelli ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
Further, according to the Court's case-law, the presumption of innocence will be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law and, notably, without his having had the opportunity of exercising his rights of defence, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty (see Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, § 37). - EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92
S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
This requirement is satisfied where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts" interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, §§ 34-36). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
As to the applicant's complaint that he had no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaints under Articles 6 § 2 of the Convention, the Court recalls that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). - EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
The provision is violated only if this is made impossible (see, mutatis mutandis, Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53). - EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 31247/96
TALAT TEPE v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
Moreover, the reasonable suspicion referred to in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention does not mean that the suspected person's guilt must at that stage be established (see Talat Tepe v. Turkey, no. 31247/96, § 59, 21 December 2004). - EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 26633/95
BADER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 14755/03
In this connection the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to parliamentary elections and do not apply to referendums (see Bader v. Austria, no. 26633/95, Commission decision of 15 March 1996).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".