Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERARU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Criminal proceedings Article 6-3-b - Access to relevant files) Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Beraru v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaint under both provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04

  While Article 6 of the Convention 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 Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 31, Reports 1997-VIII and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04

  Furthermore, the Court is aware that the possibility exists that a higher or the highest court might, in some circumstances, make reparation for defects in the first-instance proceedings (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 33, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaint under both provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 38184/03

  MATYJEK ET 11 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04

  The failure to afford such access has weighed, in the Court's assessment, in favour of the finding that the principle of equality of arms had been breached (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, §§ 59 and 63, ECHR 2007-V, and Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 64 and 68, 15 January 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 29.07.2019 - C-38/18

  Gambino und Hyka - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in …

  Daher muss eine Änderung in der Besetzung des Spruchkörpers nach der Vernehmung eines entscheidenden Zeugen grundsätzlich zu dessen erneuter Vernehmung führen (EGMR, 9. März 2004, Pitkänen/Finnland, CE:ECHR:2004:0309JUD003050896, Rn. 58, und EGMR, 18. März 2014, Beraru/Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2014:0318JUD004010704, Rn. 64).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

  MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Škaro v. Croatia, no. 6962/13, § 24, 6 December 2016; Tolmachev v. Estonia, no. 73748/13, § 52, 9 July 2015; Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 153, 27 March 2014; Beraru v. Romania, no. 40107/04, § 64, 18 March 2014; Cutean v. Romania, no. 53150/12, § 60, 2 December 2014; Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 199, 23 October 2012; Graviano v. Italy, no. 10075/02, § 39, 10 February 2005; and P.K. v. Finland (dec.), no. 37442/97, 9 July 2002.
• EGMR, 01.09.2026 - 30395/20

  BRUNELL v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The principle of immediacy thus constitutes an important safeguard in any criminal proceedings where the court's observations on a witness's behaviour and credibility are likely to have significant consequences for the accused (see Beraru v. Romania, no. 40107/04, § 64, 18 March 2014, Cutean v. Romania, no. 53150/12, § 60, 2 December 2014; Cerovšek and Božičnik v. Slovenia, nos. 68939/12 and 68949/12, § 43, 7 March 2017; Orhan Şahin v. Türkiye, no. 48309/17, § 48, 12 March 2024; and Manolache v. Romania, no. 7908/17, § 22, 3 June 2025).

• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14

  GENÇ v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  Accordingly, making written statements available could only constitute a safeguard where the credibility of the witnesses was not in question (see, to the same effect, Beraru v. Romania, no. 40107/04, § 66, 18 March 2014, and Cutean v. Romania, no. 53150/12, § 61, 2 December 2014), which was not the case here, as the applicant contested the credibility of the police officers' statements.
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68939/12

  CEROVSEK v. SLOVENIA and 1 other application

  However, it notes that in the present case the courts at higher levels of jurisdiction upheld the first-instance court's judgment without directly hearing any of the evidence (see paragraphs 17, 19, 21, 27 and 42 above, and, mutatis mutandis, Beraru v. Romania, no. 40107/04, § 71, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 46/15

  DANIELA NASTASE v. ROMANIA and 1 other application

  La Cour renvoie aussi aux principes bien établis concernant le respect du principe d'immédiateté tels qu'exposés dans les affaires Graviano c. Italie (no 10075/02, § 38, 10 février 2005), Beraru c. Roumanie (no 40107/04, § 64, 18 mars 2014), ou encore Svanidze c. Géorgie (no 37809/08, §§ 32-33, 25 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 53150/12

  CUTEAN v. ROMANIA

  The principle of immediacy is an important guarantee in criminal proceedings in which the observations made by the court about the demeanor and credibility of a witness may have important consequences for the accused (see Beraru v. Romania, no. 40107/04, § 64, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA

  The failure to afford such access has weighed, in the Court's assessment, in favour of the finding that the principle of equality of arms had been breached (see Beraru v. Romania, no. 40107/04, § 70, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 37809/08

  SVANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  The principle of immediacy is an important guarantee in criminal proceedings in which observations made by the court about the demeanour and credibility of a witness may have important consequences for the accused (see Beraru v. Romania, no. 40107/04, § 64, 18 March 2014, and Cutean v. Romania, no. 53150/12, § 60, 2 December 2014).
• EGMR, 03.06.2025 - 7908/17

  MANOLACHE c. ROUMANIE

  Rn. 20 Le requérant renvoie à la jurisprudence de la Cour en matière du respect du principe de l'immédiateté dans les procédures pénales, citant les arrêts P.K. c. Finlande ((déc.), no 37442/97, 9 juillet 2002), Beraru c. Roumanie (no 40107/04, 18 mars 2014), et Cutean c. Roumanie (no 53150/12, 2 décembre 2014), et il expose, en particulier, que sa cause présente de nombreuses similarités avec cette dernière affaire.
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 6962/13

  SKARO v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 48309/17

  SAHIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.02.2021 - 62915/17

  IANCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 36150/19

  TARJOIANU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 62775/15

  POTERAS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 48093/15

  ANTOHI v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44231/10

  PETROVAI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 61697/11

  SIMSEK c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 10239/06

  DRASOVEAN c. ROUMANIE et deux autres affaires
• EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 37324/16

  MIRON v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 24395/20

  VÍTEK c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 31560/19

  LUPOU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44252/13

  TOKAREV v. UKRAINE