Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VANFULI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c+6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vanfuli v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  However, where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive extent on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined at some stage of the proceedings, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Unterpertinger v. Austria, 24 November 1986, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 110; Saïdi, cited above, §§ 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).
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  Having regard to its foregoing considerations, the parties" submissions and the materials in its possession, the Court concludes that there is no indication that the applicant validly waived his right to legal assistance on 4 October 2002 (see paragraphs 16 and 29, compare to Savas v. Turkey, no. 9762/03, §§ 66-67, 8 December 2009 and Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, §§ 78-80, 24 September 2009).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  However, where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive extent on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined at some stage of the proceedings, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Unterpertinger v. Austria, 24 November 1986, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 110; Saïdi, cited above, §§ 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).

• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  In the event that the witnesses cannot be examined and that this is due to the fact that they are missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A; and Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 25, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  In the event that the witnesses cannot be examined and that this is due to the fact that they are missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A; and Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 25, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  The Court's task is thus to determine whether the applicant's conviction in respect of the first charge concerning which witnesses Sh. and Zh. gave their evidence was based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the evidence given by these witnesses in such a way that his right to a fair trial was violated (see, for example, Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 100-03, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, 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).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  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).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him or her either when the statements were made or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Saïdi v. France, 20 September 1993, § 43, Series A no. 261-C, and A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 9762/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  Having regard to its foregoing considerations, the parties" submissions and the materials in its possession, the Court concludes that there is no indication that the applicant validly waived his right to legal assistance on 4 October 2002 (see paragraphs 16 and 29, compare to Savas v. Turkey, no. 9762/03, §§ 66-67, 8 December 2009 and Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, §§ 78-80, 24 September 2009).
• EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 32106/96

  KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 5108/02

  KHATSIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 44803/04

  PETROPOULOU-TSAKIRIS v. GREECE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  SAMESOV v. RUSSIA

  It falls to the State to have recourse to a procedure which would enable it to take all measures necessary for it to comply with its positive obligation of effective investigation imposed by Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 14383/03, §§ 64, 68 and 69, 7 January 2010; see also Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 79, 3 November 2011; Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 87, 24 January 2012; and Nitsov v. Russia, no. 35389/04, § 60, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 13642/06

  [ENG]

  It considers, therefore, that such an appeal in the particular circumstances of the present case would have been devoid of any purpose (see, for example, Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 5108/02, § 151, 17 January 2008, and Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, §§ 72-75, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 4792/22

  ABAKUMETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  24885/05, § 74, 3 November 2011, and Nechto v. Russia,.

• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 58772/18

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, as soon as such appeals were lodged, the court refused to examine them as the impugned decisions had just been overruled by the investigators' superiors (see Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 74, 3 November 2011, and Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 82, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 41858/08

  IDALOV v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)

  It falls to the State to have recourse to a procedure which would enable it to take all measures necessary for it to comply with its positive obligation of effective investigation imposed by Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 14383/03, §§ 64, 68 and 69, 7 January 2010; see also Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 79, 3 November 2011; Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 87, 24 January 2012; and Nitsov v. Russia, no. 35389/04, § 60, 3 May 2012).".
• EGMR, 12.03.2020 - 53791/11
  The Court has held that pre-trial confrontations conducted before an investigator who did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality, who had the largely discretionary power to block questions and in which the applicants were unrepresented are not a substitute for the examination of witnesses in open court (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, §§ 78-81, 14 January 2010; Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, §§ 67-69, 13 March 2012; Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 115, 3 November 2011; and see also Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 123, 24 January 2012, where those concerns were combined with doubts as to the voluntary nature of the applicants' participation in confrontations).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  JULIN v. ESTONIA

  The Court further observes that while in many cases it may be preferable for an investigator or a prosecutor to interview in person the individuals involved in the events in question (see, for example, Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 81, 3 November 2011), it does not consider that the failure to do so in the present case led to hasty conclusions or an ill-considered refusal to instigate criminal proceedings.
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 4336/06

  MANSUROV v. RUSSIA

  It considers, therefore, that such an appeal in the particular circumstances of the present case would have been devoid of any purpose (see, for example, Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, §§ 72-75, 3 November 2011, and Gordiyenko v. Russia, no. 21462/06, § 58, 6 March 2014).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08

  SALA KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA

  However, in view of these previous decisions to suspend and reopen the proceedings, the Court is not convinced that another appeal to a court would have been effective (see Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, §§ 72-75, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  [ENG]

  To sum up, the authorities failed to offer any plausible alternative explanation for the applicant's injuries (see Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 90, 24 January 2012; and Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 82, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 22744/07

  TURK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 46661/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 5513/13

  T. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08

  BARAKHOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 630/08

  MINIKAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 12042/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 29926/08

  [ENG]