Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,16107
EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,16107)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.01.2012 - 24893/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,16107)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Januar 2012 - 24893/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,16107)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16107) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NECHTO 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, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d+6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d+6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (38)Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

    Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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 Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 147, 15 December 2011, 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, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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 Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 147, 15 December 2011, 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, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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 Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 147, 15 December 2011, 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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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 in fine, 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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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 in fine, 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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    The Court's task is thus to determine whether the applicant's conviction in respect of the first charge - in connection with which witnesses Sh. and Zh. gave their evidence - was based solely, or to a decisive degree, on the evidence given by those 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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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 are 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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05
    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 Savas v. Turkey, no. 9762/03, §§ 66-67, 8 December 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

  • EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 9154/10

    Schatschaschwili gegen Deutschland - Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von …

    Es könnte demnach im Einzelfall angemessen sein, diese Kriterien in einer anderen Reihenfolge zu prüfen, insbesondere wenn eines dieser Kriterien sich als besonders aussagekräftig für die Feststellung erweist, ob das Verfahren fair gewesen ist oder nicht (siehe diesbezüglich z.B. Nechto./. Russland, Nr. 24893/05, Rdnrn. 119-125 und 126-127, 24. Januar 2012, Mitkus./. Lettland, Nr. 7259/03, Rdnrn. 101-102 und 106, 2. Oktober 2012, Gani, a.a.O., Rdnrn. 43-45, und Şandru, a.a.O., Rdnrn. 62-66; in all diesen Sachen ist die zweite Stufe, d.h. die Beantwortung der Frage, ob die Aussagen des abwesenden Zeugen das einzige bzw. entscheidende Beweismittel gewesen ist, vor der ersten Stufe geprüft worden, d.h. vor der Frage, ob ein triftiger Grund für die Rechtfertigung des Nichterscheinens des Zeugen vorlag).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

    [ENG]

    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, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

    MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 127, 24 January 2012.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht