Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; § 240 StPO; § 244 Abs. 2 StPO; § 251 StPO; § 250 StPO; § 261 StPO
  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: Mindestrechte und Abwägung; prinzipielles Verbot der Verwertung als entscheidendes oder einziges Beweismittel; besonders vorsichtige Beweiswürdigung; Zeugenbegriff; anonyme und nicht erreichbare Zeugen; legitime Gründe für Rechtseinschränkungen bei zurechenbarer und allgemeiner Furcht des Zeugen; Gesamtrecht und Gesamtbetrachtung; R. v. Horncastle und Human Rights Act); Sondervotum Sajó und Karakas

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL-KHAWAJA ET TAHERY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1+6-3-d Violation de l'art. 6-1+6-3-d Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL-KHAWAJA AND TAHERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d
  No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL-KHAWAJA AND TAHERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institu

  [DEU] No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d;Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä. (3)

• HRR Strafrecht (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Artikel 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK und der nicht verfügbare Zeuge: Weist der modifizierte Lucà-Test den Weg aus der Sackgasse? (Antje du Bois-Pedain; HRRS 3/2012, 120)

• HRR Strafrecht (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Die "sole or decisive”-Regel zur Würdigung nicht konfrontierter Zeugenaussagen - not so decisive anymore (Prof. Dr. Frank Meyer; HRRS 3/2012, 117)

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsanmerkung)

  EGMR sendet Friedenssignal nach London

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Tahery et Al-Khawaja v. United Kingdom

  [08.01.2008]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 26766/05
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05, 22228/06
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 26766/05

nach Datum
nach Relevanz

---

Kontextvorschau:
beim Überfahren mit der Maus
immer
nur bei Klick auf

---

auch für künftige Seiten

---

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

Wird zitiert von ... (79)  

• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 61800/08  

  GANI v. SPAIN

  The Government further contended that from the Court's reasoning in many of its judgments, such as those in the cases of Krasniki v. the Czech Republic (no. 51277/99, 28 February 2006) and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011), it could be inferred that fear of death or physical injuries on the part of a witness or other person, or even the fear that significant economic losses might be incurred, constitute relevant considerations that trial courts may take into account in dispensing a witness from appearing in trial.

  When a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see, in particular, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 119, ECHR 2011).

  26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011).

• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 26171/07  

  Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Strafverfahren durch ausbleibende Gewährung …

  Darüber hinaus geht es dem Gerichtshof bei Artikel 6 Abs. 1 in erster Linie darum, die Fairness des Strafverfahrens in seiner Gesamtheit einzuschätzen (siehe aktuell hierzu Al-Khawaja und Tahery ./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 26766/05 und 22228/06, Rdnr. 118, ECHR 2011, mit weiteren Nachweisen).
• EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10  

  MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA

  Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X; Al-Khawaja and Tahery, [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).

  26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, must be further refined, based on the joint assessment of the following criteria: (1) the nature of the ground hindering the witness's presence at the trial hearing; (2) the kind of public authority before which the witness's prior testimony was given; (3) the presence or absence of the defence lawyer at that specific hearing; (4) the existence of other mechanisms to safeguard the defence's right to impugn the fairness of the gathering of testimony, the credibility of the witness and the reliability of his or her testimony; (5) the weight of the read-out testimony of the non-cross-examined witness in the trial court's judgment; and (6) the waiving of the right to cross-examine the absent witness.

 
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 26540/08  

  ROSIN v. ESTONIA

  For this reason, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaints under the two provisions taken together (see, amongst other authorities, Gani v. Spain, no. 61800/08, § 36, 19 February 2013; Aigner v. Austria, no. 28328/03, § 33, 10 May 2012; and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).

  In our view, although the applicant was unable to put questions to the victim and although the victim's evidence was decisive for the finding of guilt during the pre-trial proceedings, there were sufficient counterbalancing measures present to ensure that the applicant had a fair trial, in line with the situation in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, 15 December 2011), and with D.T. v. the Netherlands and Gani..

• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 59632/09  

  VRONCHENKO v. ESTONIA

  For this reason, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaints under the two provisions taken together (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, and Aigner v. Austria, no. 28328/03, § 33, 10 May 2012).

  It is true that the judgment sets out an accurate description of the relevant case-law, with an emphasis on the body of principles developed by the Grand Chamber in the case of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011).

• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08  

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND

  It had to be determined whether the evidence of the Chief Superintendent was sole or decisive (Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011): the nature of the evidence in question as well as the significance of evidence other than the belief evidence, would be important factors.

  The majority further hold that they must be guided by the general principles articulated by the Court in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011) (paragraphs 78-79).

• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 4184/10  

  HORNCASTLE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  26766/05 and 22228/06, 20 January 2009.

  26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, on 27 April 2012 in R. v. Ibrahim.

• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 16412/06  

  ALEKSANDR VALERYEVICH KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA

  This would permit a conviction to be based on such evidence only if it is sufficiently reliable given its importance in the case (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 119 and 147, ECHR 2011).

  As drafted, however, the above paragraph and the preceding ones, namely §§ 30-36 of the judgment, seem to call into question the logic and methodology of the test set out in Al-Kawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06).

• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 14932/09  

  KOSTECKI v. POLAND

  In the judgment of the Grand Chamber in the case of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, 15 December 2011), the Court developed its earlier jurisprudence on absent witnesses.

  Although I have voted in favour of a finding that in the instant case there was no violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d), I have to register my disagreement with the inclusion in the judgment of §§ 59 to 62, and the apparent reliance by the Court in this case on all the principles laid down in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC] nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, 15 December 2011).

• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03  

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  In making this assessment the Court will look at the proceedings as a whole having regard to the rights of the defence but also to the interests of the public and the victims that crime is properly prosecuted and, where necessary, to the rights of witnesses (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 57592/08  

  HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11  

  DVORSKI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11  

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 44324/11  

  LAWLESS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06  

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08  

  INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05  

  NECHTO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 2775/07  

  RUDNICHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03  

  MITKUS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 55546/09  

  SAMPECH c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05  

  ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23880/05  

  SALIKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 42937/08  

  JANYR c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 32211/07  

  CÜNEYT POLAT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06  

  CdSNIEKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05  

  GABRIELYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 15065/07  

  ARAS v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 63117/09  

  NIKOLITSAS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 45872/06  

  YURIY VOLKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 35985/09  

  MARTIN v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 28328/03  

  AIGNER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 17362/03  

  CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 5699/11  

  LUCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 12036/05  

  SICA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08  

  TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04  

  KARPENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07  

  EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 80563/12  

  NASTASE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 20077/04  

  SULDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 27781/06  

  VADUVA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 5592/05  

  PRAJINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 33882/05  

  SANDRU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 30465/06  

  C.B. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 50254/07  

  PAPADAKIS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 50541/08  

  IBRAHIM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 37981/06  

  SARKIZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 17735/06  

  CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 23789/09  

  BRZUSZCZYŃSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.02.2013 - 22163/08  

  MESESNEL v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 25088/07  

  PESUKIC v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 18027/05  

  STEFANCIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05  

  DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 43609/07  

  FAFROWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 18475/05  

  CHMURA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 26504/06  

  COLAC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 23858/08  

  DUMITRESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27945/07  

  POTCOAVA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 29752/05  

  BOBES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 27100/03  

  YEVGENIY IVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10  

  D.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 23280/09  

  SARP KURAY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 29353/06  

  VIDGEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 46099/06  

  ELLIS AND SIMMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND MARTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 12512/07  

  SHIMAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 43952/09  

  BOSTI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 44280/07  

  PANAIT c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 35842/05  

  VARARU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 4380/09  

  GAROFOLO v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 10948/05  

  CAMPISI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 40612/11  

  MCGLYNN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 22555/09  

  STANCULESCU v. ROMANIA AND CHITAC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 315/09  

  A.G. v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 54091/08  

  PERVUSHIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 6290/04  

  VDOVINS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 47448/13  

  MARIN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 30356/06  

  ROBINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 32328/09  

  PALAZZOLO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 51297/08  

  SENTÜRK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 18743/06  

  SELLICK AND SELLICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM