Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  As to the notion of witness, the Court considers that, although Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C. did not testify at a court hearing, they should, for the purposes of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, be regarded as a witness - a term to be given its autonomous interpretation - because their statements, as recorded by the police, were used in evidence by the Court of Appeal (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  In view of these efforts, their failure to appear did not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97

  ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  As the guarantees of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Court will consider the complaint of the proceedings relating to the charges of rape of Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C. under the two provisions taken together (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 35253/97

  VERDAM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  Bearing in mind that it concerned three nearly identical incidents with a similar modus operandi by the perpetrator and which occurred within a relatively short time span in three different towns, and having regard to all the material used in evidence against the applicant, including his own statements made before the police and the trial courts, the Court holds that the applicant's conviction cannot be said to have been based only or to a decisive extent on the statements given by Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C. to the police (see Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 713, § 63, and Verdam v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35253/97, 31 August 1999).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42965/98

  BERISHA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  Since it proved impossible to secure the attendance of Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C. for the purposes of giving evidence, which practical impossibility was also recognised by the defence at the hearing held on 19 January 2001 before the Court of Appeal, it was open to the Court of Appeal, subject to compliance with the rights of the defence, to have regard to the statements given by Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C. to the police, especially since it could consider those statements to be corroborated by other evidence (see Artner, cited above, §§ 20-24, Doorson v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, p. 473, § 80, and Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Jedoch gilt der Grundsatz, dass Unmögliches nicht geleistet werden muss ( impossibilium nulla est obligatio) ; die Nichtverfügbarkeit von Zeugen macht es für sich allein genommen nicht erforderlich, die Strafverfolgung einzustellen, sofern den Behörden nicht vorgeworfen werden kann, dass sie sich nicht sorgfältig bemüht hätten, dem Beschuldigten die Möglichkeit zu ihrer Befragung einzuräumen (siehe insbesondere Urteil Artner ./. Österreich vom 28. August 1992, Serie A Band 242-A, S. 10, Nr. 21; Ubach Mortes ./. Andorra (Entsch.), Nr. 46253/99, ECHR 2000-V; Scheper ./. die Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39209/02, 5. April 2005; Mayali ./. Frankreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 69116/01, Nr. 32, 14.
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 14212/10

  SCHOLER v. GERMANY

  Jedoch macht die Nichtverfügbarkeit von Zeugen es für sich allein genommen nicht erforderlich, die Strafverfolgung einzustellen, sofern den Behörden nicht vorgeworfen werden kann, dass sie sich nicht sorgfältig bemüht hätten, dem Angeklagten die Möglichkeit zu ihrer Befragung einzuräumen (siehe insbesondere Scheper./. Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39209/02, 5. April 2005; Mayali./. Frankreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 69116/01, Rdnr. 32, 14.
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 9154/10

  Verletzung des Grundsatzes des fairen Verfahrens und der Waffengleichheit bzgl. …

  Jedoch gilt der Grundsatz, dass Unmögliches nicht geleistet werden muss (impossibilium nulla est obligatio); die Nichtverfügbarkeit von Zeugen macht es für sich allein genommen nicht erforderlich, die Strafverfolgung einzustellen, sofern den Behörden nicht vorgeworfen werden kann, dass sie sich nicht sorgfältig bemüht hätten, dem Angeklagten die Möglichkeit zu ihrer Befragung einzuräumen (…siehe insbesondere Artner ./. Österreich , 28. August 1992, Rdnr. 21, Serie A Band 242-A; Scheper ./. Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39209/02, 5. April 2005; Mayali ./. Frankreich , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 69116/01, Rdnr. 32, 14.

• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03

  Z. v. LATVIA

  The Government drew the Court's attention to the case of Jan C.R.R. Scheper v. the Netherlands (no. 39209/02, decision of 5 April 2005), the circumstances of which were similar to the instant case and where the Court found that since "it proved to be impossible to ensure the attendance of the witnesses, it was open to the court to consider their statements to be corroborated by other evidence" and dismissed the application as manifestly ill-founded.

  However, impossibilium nulla obligatio est; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005 and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).

• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  However, provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses" unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  [ENG]

  If a missing witness's statements were corroborated by other evidence, the reading out of such statements given during the pre-trial investigation did not violate Article 6 § 3 (d) (in this regard the Government relied, inter alia, on Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 15487/08

  PRZYDZIAL c. POLOGNE

  Il incombe en principe au juge national de décider de la nécessité ou de l'opportunité de citer un témoin (voir, parmi d'autres, Bricmont c. Belgique, 7 juillet 1989, § 89, série A no 158, S.N. précité, § 44, CEDH 2002-V, Scheper c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 39209/02, 5 avril 2005, et Aigner, précité, § 35).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7993/05

  [FRE]

  En outre, la déposition de ce témoin n'a pas constitué une preuve déterminante pour fonder la condamnation de l'intéressé (Scheper c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 39209/02, 5 avril 2005), car elle n'a été prise en compte qu'indirectement.
• EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 27335/04

  [FRE]

  La Cour estime que le témoignage de Cahit Tekin n'étant pas le seul élément sur lequel repose la condamnation de la requérante, l'impossibilité pour celle-ci d'interroger ou de faire interroger une nouvelle fois ce témoin n'a pas porté atteinte aux droits de la défense au point d'enfreindre les paragraphes 1 et 3 d) de l'article 6 de la Convention (Haas c. Allemagne (déc.), no 73047/01, 17 novembre 2005, et C.R.R. Scheper c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 39209/02, 5 avril 2005).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  BIELAJ v. POLAND

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to afford the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses' unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution, the appropriateness of which it is not for the European Court to determine (see, in particular, Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005; and Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 40, 13 January 2009; Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 28).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 1505/02

  REINER ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 46794/99

  PANARISI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 62390/00

  DMITRIJEVS v. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 22695/03

  DEMSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 17988/02

  ZHOGLO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 21837/02

  KUVIKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 25198/06

  CRACIUN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 26437/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35556/05

  MAKUSZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  GOSSA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 37272/05

  CIPRIANI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 14255/02

  GLADCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 41640/04

  RUBAN ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 65014/01

  PACULA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  MIRONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 4548/02

  CARTA c. ITALIE