Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FAYSAL PAMUK v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PAMUK c. TURQUIE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 53848/07

  KARAHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  The Court reiterates that in cases where physical identification plays a pivotal role, an applicant's personal presence before a trial court together with that of witnesses takes on such an importance that the mere presence of his or her lawyer would not suffice to endorse the rights of defence, even when the lawyer is able to challenge the credibility of those witnesses (see Fikret Karahan v. Turkey, no. 53848/07, §§ 54-55, 16 March 2021).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 59133/11

  FERNANDES PEDROSO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  Those points were all the more significant given that the explanations of those witnesses were not based on an identification made on the basis of the applicant's photographs (see, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes Pedroso v. Portugal, no. 59133/11, § 102, 12 June 2018).
• EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 35253/97

  VERDAM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  Therefore, in establishing the applicant's involvement in the three armed incidents indicated in the indictment and sentencing him to life imprisonment, the trial court relied, in the Court's view, to a decisive extent on the evidence given by the absent witnesses (contrast Verdam v. the Netherlands, (dec.) no. 35253/97, 31 August 1999).

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 103, and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10

  SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  The general principles with regard to complaints relating to the examination of absent witnesses and use by the courts of the evidence given by those witnesses may be found in Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015), and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-147, ECHR 2011; see also Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, §§ 57-59, 31 March 2016 for a concise summary of those principles).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that it has already held in Seton (cited above, § 61) that the absence of a witness from the country where the proceedings were being conducted was not in itself sufficient reason to justify his or her absence from the trial (see also Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 81, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 12.03.2020 - 53791/11

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  The Court has already held that the same principles will be applicable in respect of the examination of a witness in the course of the trial, including the relevant modalities thereof (see Chernika v. Ukraine, no. 53791/11, § 46, 12 March 2020; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, § 49, 30 July 2019; and Cherpion v. Belgium (dec.), no. 47158/11, §§ 35-41, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  SÜLEYMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  Furthermore, the Court has already held that the distance between two cities cannot be regarded of itself and in the abstract as a good reason for failure by judges to ensure the examination of witnesses in person (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 78, 17 November 2020) and that the Contracting States are required to take positive steps, in particular to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him.
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  Lastly, the Court has clarified that the fact that witnesses are in prison, in other words in a place within the exclusive knowledge and control of the authorities of the State, cannot by and of itself constitute a good reason for their non-attendance at the trial in person (see Bondar, cited above, § 76, and Dastan v. Turkey, no. 37272/08, § 24, 10 October 2017).
• EGMR, 30.07.2019 - 74845/12

  ÜREK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  The Court has already held that the same principles will be applicable in respect of the examination of a witness in the course of the trial, including the relevant modalities thereof (see Chernika v. Ukraine, no. 53791/11, § 46, 12 March 2020; Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey, no. 74845/12, § 49, 30 July 2019; and Cherpion v. Belgium (dec.), no. 47158/11, §§ 35-41, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 18895/08

  BONDAR v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 3571/09

  ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 72165/13

  PANAGIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 47158/11

  CHERPION c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 29187/10

  SMAJGL v. SLOVENIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY

  The Court has therefore often made reference to the possibility of reopening criminal proceedings in cases against Türkiye where an individual was found to have been convicted following proceedings that had entailed breaches of the requirements of Articles 6 or 7 of the Convention (see, for instance, Balta and Demir v. Turkey, no. 48628/12, § 70, 23 June 2015; Fikret Karahan v. Turkey, no. 53848/07, § 64, 16 March 2021; Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, § 79, 18 January 2022; and Sinan Çetinkaya and Ağyar Çetinkaya, cited above, § 49).
• LSG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 25.11.2020 - L 11 SF 308/18

  Anspruch auf Entschädigung für ein überlanges sozialgerichtliches Verfahren; …

  "WV mit S 3 U 328/13, 114/13, 430/13".
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 23369/16

  JAUPI v. ALBANIA

  Rn. 144 The Court reiterates that a witness statement taken by the judicial police cannot be regarded as a substitute for the applicant's right to cross-examine that witness in the presence of the trial judge, who will ultimately adjudicate on the question of his or her guilt (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 155; see also Hümmer v. Germany, no. 26171/07, § 48, 19 July 2012; Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013 in fine; and Dadayan v. Armenia, no. 14078/12, § 46, 6 September 2018; see also, mutatis mutandis, Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, §§ 70-71, 18 January 2022).

• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 31226/09

  AYKAÇ v. TÜRKİYE

  Rn. 65 The general principles with regard to complaints relating to the examination of absent witnesses and the use by the courts of the evidence given by those witnesses may be found in Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011; see also Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, §§ 44-50, 18 January 2022 for a concise summary of those principles).
• EGMR, 29.08.2024 - 59464/21

  KHACHAPURIDZE AND KHACHIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  Rn. 110 Referring to Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey (no. 430/13, §§ 45-49, 18 January 2022) these principles may be summarised as follows: they lay down a tripartite test whereby the Court is required to examine (i) whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance of the absent witness at the trial; (ii) whether the evidence given by the absent witness was the sole or decisive basis for the applicant's conviction or carried significant weight in that regard; and (iii) whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the handicaps under which the defence laboured vis-à-vis the evidence given by the absent witness.
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 26134/19

  KHAVSHABOVA v. GEORGIA

  In the latter respect, the Court notes that a witness statement taken in the presence of a magistrate (investigating) judge cannot in itself be regarded as a substitute for the applicant's right to examine that witness in the presence of the trial judge, who ultimately adjudicates upon the question of his or her guilt (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, § 155; see also Hümmer v. Germany, no. 26171/07, § 48, 19 July 2012; Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 40, 4 June 2013 in fine; and Dadayan v. Armenia, no. 14078/12, § 46, 6 September 2018; see also, mutatis mutandis, Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, §§ 70-71, 18 January 2022).
• EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 16373/18

  TIRYAKI v. TÜRKIYE and 2 other applications

  Rn. 13 The general principles with regard to complaints relating to the non-attendance at the trial of prosecution witnesses and the use by the courts of the evidence given by those witnesses outside the trial may be found in Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011; see also Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, §§ 44-50, 18 January 2022, for a concise summary of those principles).
• EGMR, 20.05.2025 - 52544/18

  HINDIOGLU v. TURKEY

  Rn. 17 The general principles with regard to complaints relating to absent prosecution witnesses and the use by the courts of the evidence given by those witnesses may be found in Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015), and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011; see also Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, §§ 44-50, 18 January 2022 for a summary of those principles).
• EGMR, 09.07.2024 - 2577/19

  BAYGELDI v. TURKEY

  Rn. 12 The general principles with regard to complaints relating to the examination of absent witnesses and the use by the courts of the evidence given by those witnesses may be found in Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015), and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011; see also Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey, no. 430/13, §§ 44-50, 18 January 2022 for a concise summary of those principles).
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 40198/11

  KARAKOÇ v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  The principles regarding the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) can be found in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011); Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015); and Faysal Pamuk v. Turkey (no. 430/13, §§ 44-50, 18 January 2022).
• EGMR - 35930/21 (anhängig)

  DOGANAY v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 16592/22 (anhängig)

  YILMAZ v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 21.04.2020 - 28085/16

  ANDRUSZKIEWICZ AND FLUDERSKI v. POLAND