Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SINICHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  The Court reiterates that in the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A, and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A), and that the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  In this respect the Court stresses that it is not its role to decide in the abstract whether the applicable domestic law is compatible with the Convention or whether it has been respected by the national authorities, but to assess whether the requirements of Article 6 have been complied with (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 97, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  In particular, proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6, even though the appellant has not been given the opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that he has been heard by a first-instance court (see Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 30, Series A no. 115, and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 30, Series A no. 74).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  At the same time the Court held on several occasions that where an appellate court has to examine a case as to the facts and the law and make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine that issue without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused for the purpose of proving that he did not commit the act allegedly constituting a criminal offence (see Dondarini v. San Marino, no. 50545/99, § 27, 6 July 2004; Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 27, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  The Court reiterates that in the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A, and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A), and that the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  In particular, proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6, even though the appellant has not been given the opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that he has been heard by a first-instance court (see Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 30, Series A no. 115, and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 30, Series A no. 74).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  Furthermore, in appeal proceedings reviewing the case both as to facts and as to law Article 6 has been interpreted by the Court in several cases as not always requiring a right to appear in person (see, for example, Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C).
• EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have by implication, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 28.10.1994 - 18711/91

  BONER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  As regards, in particular, the need for an applicant to be provided with legal-aid counsel on appeal, the Court has already held that the situation in a case involving a heavy penalty where an appellant was left to present his own defence unassisted before the highest instance of appeal, which has wide powers in the assessment of the case, was not in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 (see Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 32, 26 June 2008; Granger v. the United Kingdom, 28 March 1990, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 174; Maxwell v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, §§ 38-41, Series A no. 300-C; and Boner v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, §§ 38-44, Series A no. 300-B).

• BVerfG, 18.12.2023 - 2 BvR 1368/23

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen gegen seine …

  aa) Für ein faires Strafverfahren ist es von zentraler Bedeutung, dass der Angeklagte persönlich am Verfahren teilnimmt (vgl. EGMR, Poitrimol v. France, Urteil vom 23. November 1993, Nr. 14032/88, § 35; Sinichkin v. Russia, Urteil vom 8. April 2010, Nr. 20508/03, § 30, m.w.N.; vgl. zum Ganzen auch BVerfGE 140, 317 ).

  Rechtsmittelverfahren, in denen nur über Rechtsfragen, nicht aber über Tatsachenfragen entschieden wird, stehen gegebenenfalls mit Art. 6 EMRK im Einklang, obwohl der Angeklagte der Verhandlung nicht persönlich beiwohnt, sofern er in erster Instanz anwesend war (vgl. EGMR, Sinichkin v. Russia, Urteil vom 8. April 2010, Nr. 20508/03, § 31; , Sakhnovskiy v. Russia, Urteil vom 2. November 2010, Nr. 21272/03, § 96).

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte nimmt insoweit eine Einzelfallbetrachtung vor, in der der Prüfungsumfang und die Entscheidungsbefugnis des Rechtsmittelgerichts, der Gegenstand des Verfahrens und seine Bedeutung für den Angeklagten sowie die Art und Weise, in der die Interessen des Angeklagten vor Gericht geschützt werden, eine Rolle spielen (vgl. EGMR , Hermi v. Italy, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2006, Nr. 18114/02, § 60; Sinichkin v. Russia, Urteil vom 8. April 2010, Nr. 20508/03, § 30 m.w.N.;… zum Ganzen vgl. Grabenwarter/Pabel, in: Dörr/Grote/Marauhn, EMRK/GG Konkordanzkommentar, 3. Aufl. 2022, Kap. 14 Rn. 147 m.w.N.).

  Ausgehend von der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zur herausgehobenen Bedeutung des Rechts eines Angeklagten auf Anwesenheit in der strafgerichtlichen Hauptverhandlung (vgl. insoweit nur EGMR, Colozza v. Italy, Urteil vom 12. Februar 1985, Nr. 9024/80, §§ 27 ff.; Poitrimol v. France, Urteil vom 23. November 1993, Nr. 14032/88, § 35; Sinichkin v. Russia, Urteil vom 8. April 2010, Nr. 20508/03, § 30 m.w.N.) hätte sich das Oberlandesgericht bereits im Ausgangspunkt mit der Frage auseinandersetzen müssen, ob dem Beschwerdeführer nach türkischem Recht grundsätzlich das Recht zukommt, auf seinen Wunsch hin an einer gegen ihn gerichteten erstinstanzlichen Hauptverhandlung persönlich teilzunehmen.

• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 36470/08

  CIPLEU v. ROMANIA

  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 v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-VIII; 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).