Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERISHA v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42965/98

  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 in respect of Zuzana V. under the two provisions taken together (see the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42965/98

  In view of these efforts, her failure to appear did not make it necessary to halt the prosecution insofar as it related to her (see the Artner v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42965/98

  The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see the Asch judgment mentioned above, p. 10, § 26; the Edwards judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  While the Court is not unmindful of the domestic courts" obligation to secure the proper conduct of the trial and avoid undue delays in the criminal proceedings, it does not consider that a five-day stay in the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining Mr I."s testimony at the trial, in which the applicant stood accused of a very serious offence and was risking a long term of imprisonment, would have constituted an insuperable hindrance to the expediency of the proceedings at hand (see Artner, cited above, p. 10, § 21; Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000; and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  [ENG]

  The Court therefore concludes that the efforts made by the authorities cannot be said to have been sufficient in the circumstances of the case (see, in this respect, Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A, where the Austrian police were instructed by the trial court to make every effort to find a missing witness; Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000, where the Dutch authorities tried to call a witness residing in the Slovak Republic through the Slovak authorities; and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005, where the German authorities made considerable efforts to secure the attendance of a witness serving a prison sentence in Lebanon).
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  KRIVOSHAPKIN v. RUSSIA

  While the Court understands difficulties encountered by the authorities in terms of resources, it does not consider that calling at the trial Mr P. who lived in a neighbouring country, reimbursing travelling costs and expenses to Mr R., tracking down of Mr M.Kh. and awaiting Mr M.M.'s return from his travel would have constituted an insuperable obstacle (see, for example, Artner, cited above, p. 10, § 21, where the Austrian police was instructed by the trial court to make every effort to find a missing witness; or Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000, where the Dutch authorities tried to call a witness residing in the Slovak Republic through the Slovak authorities; and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005, where the German authorities made considerable efforts to secure the attendance of a witness serving a prison sentence in Lebanon).

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  While the Court is not unmindful of the difficulties encountered by the authorities in terms of resources, it does not consider that Mr Z.T.'s tracking down for the purpose of calling him at the trial, in which the applicant stood accused of a very serious offence and was risking up to fifteen years' imprisonment (see paragraph 30 above), would have constituted an insuperable obstacle (see Artner, cited above, p. 10, § 21, where the Austrian police was instructed by the trial court to make every effort to find a missing witness; Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000, where the Dutch authorities tried to call a witness residing in the Slovak Republic through the Slovak authorities; and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005, where the German authorities made considerable efforts to secure the attendance of a witness serving a prison sentence in Lebanon).
• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  [ENG]

  On the other hand, the domestic courts made no effort at all to secure their presence at the trial or to interview them in their home country (see, a contrario, Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005, and Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000, where victims of trafficking were questioned in their home country in the presence of the applicant's lawyer).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  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).
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 26504/06

  COLAC v. ROMANIA

  The Court therefore is not convinced that the efforts made by the authorities can be said to have been sufficient in the circumstances of the case (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A, where the Austrian police were instructed by the trial court to make every effort to find a missing witness; Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000, where the Dutch authorities tried to call a witness residing in the Slovak Republic through the Slovak authorities; and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005, where the German authorities made considerable efforts to secure the attendance of a witness serving a prison sentence in Lebanon).