Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ACCARDI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  In particular, it is not for the Court to determine whether an applicant is guilty or not (see, mutatis mutandis, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  Such provisions relate in particular to the terms of office, disqualification and challenging of judges (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  The Court's task under the Convention is not to rule as to whether witnesses" statements were properly admitted as evidence, but rather to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among many other authorities, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 38, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

  BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  In that regard it reiterates that, while the above provision may be relevant before a case is sent for trial, its primary purpose, as far as criminal matters are concerned, is to ensure a fair trial by a "tribunal" competent to determine "any criminal charge" (see Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X, and Berlinski v. Poland, nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96, § 75, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  The phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a tribunal, but also the composition of the bench in each case (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 14.01.2003 - 49849/99

  LEMASSON et ACHAT contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  The rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or to a decisive extent, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX, and Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; see also Lemasson and Achat v. France (dec.), no. 49849/99, 14 January 2003).
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 34657/97

  FORCELLINI c. SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  In particular, the guarantees of independence and impartiality inherent in a fair trial relate solely to the courts called upon to decide whether the accused is innocent or guilty (see Forcellini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 34657/97, 28 May 2002; Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001; and De Lorenzo v. Italy, cited above, in which the Court held that Article 6 could not apply to the body responsible for committing the applicant for trial).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69264/01

  DE LORENZO contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  It will therefore confine its attention to establishing whether the manner in which the proceedings were brought against the applicants in the domestic courts was compatible with the rights of the defence (see De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  Given that the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 represent specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, the Court will examine the applicants" complaints in the light of the two texts taken in combination (see, among many other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 31-32, § 62).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  Given that the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 represent specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, the Court will examine the applicants" complaints in the light of the two texts taken in combination (see, among many other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 31-32, § 62).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

• EuGH, 16.06.2005 - C-105/03

  DER GERICHTSHOF BEJAHT DIE ANWENDUNG DES GRUNDSATZES DER …

  60 Das vorlegende Gericht hat sich zu vergewissern, dass - sofern das Beweissicherungsverfahren und die Anhörung unter den im italienischen Recht vorgesehenen besonderen Modalitäten im vorliegenden Fall möglich sind - die Anwendung dieser Maßnahmen unter Berücksichtigung der Verpflichtung zu rahmenbeschlusskonformer Auslegung des nationalen Rechts nicht dazu führt, dass das Strafverfahren gegen Frau Pupino insgesamt gesehen nicht mehr fair im Sinne von Artikel 6 der Konvention nach dessen Auslegung durch den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte ist (vgl. u. a. Urteile des EGMR vom 20. Dezember 2001, P. S./Deutschland, vom 2. Juli 2002, S. N./Schweden, Receuil des arrêts et décisions 2002-V, und vom 13. Februar 2004, Rachdad/Frankreich, sowie Entscheidung vom 20. Januar 2005, Accardi u. a./Italien, Req. 30598/02).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 26374/18

  GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND

  In a number of cases the Court held that it could not question the interpretation of domestic law by a domestic court unless there had been a "flagrant violation" or a "flagrant breach" of domestic law (see, specifically with respect to the requirement that a tribunal must be established "by law", Lavents, cited above, § 114; Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-III; DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, § 61, 5 October 2010; Kontalexis v. Greece, no. 59000/08, § 39, 31 May 2011; ? orgic v. Serbia, no. 34973/06, § 63, 3 November 2011; Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 8162/13, § 75, 8 July 2014; and Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary, no. 57774/13, § 50, 12 January 2016; see also paragraph 100 of the present judgment).
• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 29881/07

  SIEVERT v. GERMANY

  Der Beschwerdeführer konnte zwar die Zeugen nicht direkt befragen, hatte aber dennoch die Möglichkeit, ihre Glaubwürdigkeit in Zweifel zu ziehen und ihrer Schilderung des Sachverhalts zu widersprechen (siehe Asch./. Österreich, 26. April 1991, Rdnr. 29, Serie A Band 203, sowie Accardi u. a../. Italien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The applicant was neither provided with an opportunity to follow the manner in which Mr I. was interrogated by the investigator on those occasions nor he was then or later provided with an opportunity to have questions put to Mr I. Furthermore, as Mr I."s statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe his demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of his reliability (see, a contrario, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 8824/09

  EL KHOURY v. GERMANY

  Der Beschwerdeführer konnte zwar den Zeugen nicht direkt befragen, hatte aber dennoch die Möglichkeit, dessen Glaubwürdigkeit in Zweifel zu ziehen und seiner Schilderung des Sachverhalts zu widersprechen (…vgl. auch Asch./. Österreich, 26. April 1991, Rdnr. 29, Serie A Band 203; Accardi u. a../. Italien [Entsch.], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II;… S., a. a. O., Rdnr. 63).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 56396/12

  PEREIRA CRUZ ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  Cela dit, l'accusé doit avoir la possibilité d'observer le comportement des témoins interrogés et de contester leurs déclarations et leur crédibilité (P.S. c. Allemagne, précité, § 26, S.N. c. Suède, précité, § 52, et Accardi et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 30598/02, 20 janvier 2005).
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08

  TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Sur ce point, la Cour observe également que dans certains ordres juridiques, il est possible d'effectuer un enregistrement vidéo de l'interrogatoire d'un témoin qui risque de ne plus pouvoir témoigner au moment du procès, lequel enregistrement peut ensuite être visionné à l'audience (voir, par exemple, Accardi et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 30598/02, CEDH 2005-II ; Chmura c. Pologne, no 18475/05, §§ 22 et 50, 3 avril 2012 ; Aigner, précité, §§ 41-42).
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 55546/09

  SAMPECH c. ITALIE

  En conséquence, la Cour admet que, dans le cadre de procédures se rapportant à des abus sexuels, certaines mesures soient prises aux fins de protéger la victime, pourvu que ces mesures puissent être conciliées avec un exercice adéquat et effectif des droits de la défense (S.N. c. Suède, no 34209/96, § 47 CEDH 2002-V, Lemasson et Achat c. France (déc.), no 49849/99, 14 janvier 2003, et Accardi et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 30598/02, 20 janvier 2005).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 28328/03

  AIGNER v. AUSTRIA

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to call a witness (see, among many other authorities, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II, with further references; see also Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 27).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05

  DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, as the witnesses" statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the jury was able to observe their demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of their reliability (see, a contrario, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 40156/07

  A.S. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 54789/00

  BOCOS-CUESTA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 18475/05

  CHMURA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.06.2011 - 20024/04

  ZDRAVKO PETROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 47091/09

  PASTYRÍK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  DADAYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 22502/02

  KARULIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 13769/04

  MAKEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 61047/13

  GONZÁLEZ NÁJERA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  MATOUSEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC