Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  Inasmuch as the applicant's claim relates to the finding of that violation, the Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  The Court has previously found that where the domestic judicial authorities are confronted by several conflicting versions of truth offered by the same person, their final preference for a statement given to the investigative authorities over one given in an open court does not in itself raise an issue under the Convention where this preference is substantiated and the statement itself was given of the person's own volition (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see, amongst other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140, and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV).

• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  An issue may, however, arise if the conviction is based solely or to a decisive extent on those statements (see, amongst other authorities, Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, §§ 25, 27, Series A no. 203; Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Luca v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  An issue may, however, arise if the conviction is based solely or to a decisive extent on those statements (see, amongst other authorities, Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, §§ 25, 27, Series A no. 203; Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Luca v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  An issue may, however, arise if the conviction is based solely or to a decisive extent on those statements (see, amongst other authorities, Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, §§ 25, 27, Series A no. 203; Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Luca v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 18/03

  VANZHULA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  18/03/2009.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 483/10

  STANISLAV LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government ("the Government") of the complaints concerning the manner in which the applicant was treated in prison after the delivery of the Court's judgment in his case no. 30663/04 and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;.

  The present application concerns alleged reprisals against the applicant and the manner in which he was treated by the prison authorities after the delivery of the Court's judgment in respect of a previous application lodged by him (no. 30663/04).

  On 18 December 2008 the Court delivered a judgment in that case (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04), finding a violation of Article 6 § 1. On the same date the parties were notified of the delivery of the judgment, which was published on the Court's website.

  The applicant complained that his life in prison had been affected adversely by reprisals in the form of disciplinary sanctions and transfers to other prisons, imposed by the prison authorities following the delivery of the Court's judgment in application no. 30663/04.

  They argued that there was no link between the sanctions imposed and the delivery of the Court's judgment in application no. 30663/04 and that the timing of those sanctions had been a coincidence.

  The Court notes, in relation to the disciplinary sanctions and the imposition of a strict prison regime, that at the time immediately prior to publication of the Court's judgment in application no. 30663/04 on 18 December 2008, the applicant had been commended by the prison authority on eleven occasions for his good behaviour and had been placed under a less severe regime of detention, which allowed his temporary release from prison and meetings with his family (see paragraph 10 above).

  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to reprisals by the prison authorities following the delivery of the Court's judgment in application no. 30663/04.

• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen Verteidigerbeistand bei der ersten Vernehmung …

  In the Court's view, statements obtained in the absence of procedural guarantees, should be treated with caution (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 51, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 41269/08

  [FRE]

  Il suffit que ses déclarations soient susceptibles d'affecter substantiellement la position de l'accusé (Chabelnik c. Ukraine, no 16404/03, § 57, 19 février 2009), les déclarations faites lorsque l'accusé n'est pas informé de son droit de garder le silence et de ne pas s'incriminer lui-même, devant être traitées avec précaution extrême (Loutsenko c. Ukraine, no 30663/04, § 51, 18 décembre 2008).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  DOGAN v. TURKEY

  Rn. 101 Furthermore, the Court is likewise unable to uphold the Government's argument that the applicant had failed to lodge an objection against the trial court's decision not to hear V.Ç., given that the reason for the trial court's decision not to summon him, namely that "hearing him again would not make a new contribution to the trial, given that he had previously been tried as an accused in the proceedings", appears to have rendered such an objection futile (compare Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, §§ 50-52, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 50541/08
  In making this evaluation the Court looks at the proceedings as a whole, having regard to whether the rights of the defence have been respected (see, for example, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 164; Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 42, 18 December 2008; and Aleksandr Zaichenko, cited above, § 57).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 22313/04

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see, for example, Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 60, 18 December 2008, and Shabelnik, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 57980/11

  ZHYZITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see, for example, Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 60, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  [ENG]

  The Court notes in this regard that where doubts arise as to the reliability of a certain source of evidence, the need to corroborate it by evidence from other sources is correspondingly greater (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 49, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 30180/11

  FAMULYAK v. UKRAINE

  The reliability of evidence can be compromised where it is established that it was obtained in breach of a third party's right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination (see, for example, Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 49, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  While the domestic courts relied on the statements given by him at the pre-trial stage as well as those given after the initiation of the impugned proceedings, the Court notes that where the domestic judicial authorities are confronted by several conflicting versions of truth offered by the same person, their final preference for a statement given to the investigating authorities over one given in an open court does not in itself raise an issue under the Convention where this preference is substantiated and the statement itself was given of the person's own volition (see, among other authorities, Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 49, 18 December 2008, and Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 78, Reports 1996-II).
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 16717/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  CAKA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 15351/09

  AMIRIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 7817/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 18720/08

  [FRE]