Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CAKA v. ALBANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Violations of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 44023/02

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  In that connection it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to "guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" and that assigning a counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he may afford an accused (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 38, and Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).

  There is no indication that the applicant, having appointed five lawyers, lacked sufficient means to pay for legal assistance in the trial proceedings (see, a contrario, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37).

• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  As a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statements or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 47, Series A no. 238, and Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-III).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  The failure of the respondent State (namely the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the Police Directorate) to ensure the attendance of the police officers who act as the depository of the public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State, combined with the trial court's inability to secure the enforcement of its summons, falls short of the diligence which the Contracting States must exercise in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 are enjoyed in an effective manner (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 33, § 78).

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  The rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Vozhigov v. Russia, no. 5953/02, § 51, 26 April 2007; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  However, in the appeal proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, who, and this has not been contested by the parties, made concluding remarks reaffirming his innocence of the criminal charges brought against him (see, among many other authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 39, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  The failure of the respondent State (namely the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the Police Directorate) to ensure the attendance of the police officers who act as the depository of the public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State, combined with the trial court's inability to secure the enforcement of its summons, falls short of the diligence which the Contracting States must exercise in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 are enjoyed in an effective manner (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 33, § 78).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  In so far as the applicant's claim relates to the finding of violations of Article 6 § 3 (d) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, 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 or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 72, 27 November 2008; Polufakin and Chernyshev, cited above, § 219; 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, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96

  CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  The applicant at no point alerted the authorities to any difficulties encountered in preparing his defence and there is nothing to indicate that the trial court should have addressed itself to the applicant's situation of its own motion as the ultimate guardian of the fairness of the proceedings (see Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter (see, for example, Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 205, 25 September 2008).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  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 Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 49, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BVerfG, 18.12.2023 - 2 BvR 1368/23

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen gegen seine …

  Ein Verzicht auf das Recht auf Anwesenheit ist nur wirksam, wenn er in eindeutiger Weise erklärt wird und durch ein Mindestmaß an Verfahrensgarantien abgesichert ist (vgl. EGMR , Hermi v. Italy, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2006, Nr. 18114/02, §§ 73 ff.; Caka v. Albania, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 2009, Nr. 44023/02, §§ 86 ff.).