Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (62)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 184-234, 10 January 2012; and Zherebin, cited above, §§ 74-82).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  However, the identification of a systemic or a structural problem as such does not call for providing precise guidance under Article 46 to a High Contracting Party (see, for example, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 94-95, 11 April 2013, and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 74-82, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 51445/09

  ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  However, the identification of a systemic or a structural problem as such does not call for providing precise guidance under Article 46 to a High Contracting Party (see, for example, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 94-95, 11 April 2013, and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 74-82, 24 March 2016).

• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  At the outset the Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 of the Convention are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision (see Al Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011); it will therefore consider the applicant's complaint under both provisions taken together (see Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 23, Series A no. 186, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  At the same time, it considers that the payment of monetary awards under Article 41 is designed to make reparation only for such consequences of a violation that cannot be remedied otherwise (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 250, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  At the outset the Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 of the Convention are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision (see Al Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011); it will therefore consider the applicant's complaint under both provisions taken together (see Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 23, Series A no. 186, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  In support of their argument they referred to cases where the Court had concluded that under the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention, full acquittal, discontinuation of the proceedings, trial de novo or reopening of the proceedings had been considered as appropriate redress for a person having victim status under the Convention (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006; Olesky v. Poland (dec.), no. 1379/06, 16 June 2009; and Carboni v. Italy (dec.), no 51554/99, 12 February 2004).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 30749/12

  HOKKELING v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  The Court notes that it has previously concluded that a finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 of the Convention when similar procedural arrangements were in place under the domestic law (see, among recent authorities, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 315, ECHR 2016; Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, §§ 67-68, 14 February 2017; Sitnevskiy and Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 48016/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  48016/06 and 7817/07, § 142, 10 November 2016; and A.T. v. Luxembourg, no. 30460/13, § 97, 9 April 2015).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 29752/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  The Court has previously accepted on several occasions that a witness's state of health or the fact that he or she had been undergoing in-patient treatment might be a valid reason for his or her absence from the trial and for the reading of pre-trial statements as evidence (see, for example, Bobeş v. Romania, no. 29752/05, § 39, 9 July 2013, and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 35292/05

  SAMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 51554/99

  CARBONI contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 1379/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 44324/11

  LAWLESS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 66152/14

  KUZMINA v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications

  Given the Court's findings in Kumitskiy and Others (cited above, § 17), the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present cases (see also Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 12233/10

  LIVADNIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, 12 December 2017.

  Given the Court's findings in Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia (nos. 66215/12 and 4 others, § 28, 10 July 2018), the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present cases (see also Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13764/15

  MARTYNYUK v. RUSSIA

  Having said this, the Court considers that the finding of a violation is not sufficient to constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may have suffered (see, mutatis mutandis, Nagmetov, cited above, § 90, albeit specifically in the context of an absent valid "claim" for just satisfaction, which is not an issue here; and contrast Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, § 81, 12 December 2017, with further references, relating to the prospects of reparation at national level following and relating to the Court's judgment in relation to the specific right to examine prosecution witnesses in the context of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention).

• EGMR, 11.12.2025 - 15587/10

  DIACO c. ITALIE et 2 autres affaires

  Rn. 112 En conclusion, au vu des éléments ci-dessus, la Cour estime opportun d'indiquer des mesures générales (Zadumov c. Russie, no 2257/12, § 91-96, 12 décembre 2017), d'autant plus que certains éléments semblent mettre en évidence l'existence de certains dysfonctionnements dans la gestion des procédures concernant le remboursement des sommes reconnues à titre d'aide judiciaire.
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 2991/06

  BELUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the fact that domestic law provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention, and given the position of the Russian Supreme Court, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017, and most recently, Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  In this context the Court notes that the domestic law provides for the reopening of the proceedings if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, § 80, 12 December 2017), and does not find it necessary to make any further pronouncement on the necessity of individual measures in the present case.
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Eu égard à la possibilité en droit russe de la réouverture du procès à la suite d'un arrêt de la Cour constatant violation de la Convention (paragraphe 46 ci-dessus) ainsi qu'à la position de la Cour suprême concernant l'admission des dépositions obtenues prétendument au moyen de mauvais traitements (paragraphes 41-44 ci-dessus), la Cour considère que le constat de violation suffit en lui-même à compenser le préjudice moral subi par le requérant (Kormev, précité, § 96, Zadumov c. Russie, no 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 décembre 2017, et Kumitskiy et autres c. Russie, nos 66215/12 et 4 autres, § 28, 10 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 3598/10

  KISLOV v. RUSSIA

  Overall, the Court is not satisfied that the reliance on their pre-trial testimony in the trial judgment was indicative of a "flagrant denial of justice" (compare with Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 44-49, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 66215/12

  KUMITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court, having regard to the fact that domestic law, in particular in Articles 413 and 415 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 11 above), provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention, and given the position of the Russian Supreme Court in relation to the application by the national courts of the Convention principles in cases dealing with the police entrapment (see paragraph 12 above), considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants (see Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017, and most recently, Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, § 68, 14 February 2017).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 9867/06

  [ENG]

  18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees; Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, 12 December 2017, Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016, and Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, 12 June 2012, concerning unfair court proceedings in view of the lack of practical opportunities to adduce evidence in support of applicant's version of events, including by questioning defence witnesses, or given the court's failure to address the decisive argument and to motivate the decision accordingly; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  OTEGI MONDRAGON AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 37617/10

  CABRAL v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR - 24755/08 (anhängig)

  RANKIN v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 41229/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 5723/09

  ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12348/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 38047/08

  KIBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 34287/22

  MARCHENKO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2026 - 56326/18

  KERIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 49853/10

  IVCHENKO and 4 other applications v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 52277/11

  DEMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 67312/12

  FIRSTOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 52151/09

  SHAPENKOV v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 23686/13

  KOZLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 60123/10

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 10093/06

  POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 15597/22 (anhängig)

  MARO? EVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 7691/15

  BUNYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.07.2024 - 6823/19

  KONDRATYUK v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 32671/13

  SLÁDEK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 46043/08

  KAMPER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 43861/13

  SCHÄFER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 705/16

  GADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 13175/18

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 45497/18

  KONDRASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 58501/18

  FOROSTYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 4695/19

  ABINYAKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 42046/19

  SHKURDIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 38419/14

  DMITRIYEVA AND STYROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 63160/13

  AZARSANOV AND BOROKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2020 - 46440/16

  MEDVEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 11008/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 60646/13

  BUKREYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 42265/06

  NEUYMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 51498/12

  KOLTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 2075/14

  SOLOVJOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 27870/12

  MIKHAYLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 21891/12

  BOYKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 22382/07

  YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 45414/09

  IVAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 41969/05

  SHESTAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 30906/06

  GAZIZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 6261/16

  BARSEGIAN v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 62082/10

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 60757/12

  ANZINA v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 32984/06

  STAFEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 38891/08

  VASILYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 7779/17

  BOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 10355/09

  LOBAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 28634/11

  KHASANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 66637/12

  FUDIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 41214/04

  GAYEVOY v. RUSSIA