Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAMETSHIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3-d (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  However, the use in evidence of statements obtained at the stage of the police inquiry and the judicial investigation is not in itself inconsistent with paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6, provided that the rights of the defence have been respected (see Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, § 43, Series A no. 261-C, and A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  The same paragraphs, taken together, require the Contracting States to take positive steps to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him, such measures being part of the diligence 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, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  If there has been no negligence on the part of the authorities, the impossibility of securing the appearance of a witness at the trial does not in itself make it necessary to halt the prosecution (see Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, § 21).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  In addition, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic, cited above, § 86, and Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66).".
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  The rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or to a decisive extent, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A, and Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, § 35, Series A no. 194-A).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence; 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, judgment of 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  In particular, the Court is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  Since the requirements of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 represent specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1, the Court will examine the applicant's complaint under the two provisions taken together (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, § 25, Series A no. 203).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 18487/03

  Article 6 does not grant the accused an unlimited right to secure the appearance of witnesses in court and it is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (see, among many other authorities, Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158).

• EGMR, 23.06.2011 - 20024/04

  ZDRAVKO PETROV v. BULGARIA

  It can therefore be concluded that the applicant, who was legally represented (contrast Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 41, 8 June 2006, and Khametshin v. Russia, no. 18487/03, §§ 39-40, 4 March 2010), can reasonably be regarded as having waived his right to examine Ms G.Y. or have her examined (see Andandonskiy, cited above, § 54).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 6383/15

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The applicant, assisted by his defence lawyer, did not object to the reading out of the witnesses' pre-trial statements at the hearing (see paragraph 9 above) and did not contest the accuracy of the relevant trial records (compare Khametshin v. Russia, no. 18487/03, §§ 40-41, 4 March 2010, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above, §§ 119-25).