Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAWLESS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 44324/11

  Having also considered the Supreme Court's ruling in R. v. Horncastle and others [2009] UKSC 14 (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 57-62, ECHR 2011), the trial judge found that the evidence of Mr Widdicombe was by no means the sole or decisive evidence in the case.

  26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011 must apply.

• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 35863/10

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Begründungspflicht bei der Jury: Erfüllung durch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 44324/11

  The Court notes that it has already considered and rejected a similar complaint in Judge v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35863/10, 8 February 2011, where it found that, although the Scottish jury which convicted the applicant did not give reasons for their verdict, the procedural and substantive safeguards contained in Scots law were sufficient for the applicant to understand why he had been found guilty.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 6232/20

  Micheil Saakaschwili

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that even where, unlike the situation in the present case, the circumstantial evidence was the only evidence used to form the basis for a conviction, this does not necessarily amount to a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, provided that such indirect evidence was substantial, unambiguous and produced in the presence of the accused party with a view to adversarial argument, and provided that the domestic courts sufficiently explained the relevance of such evidence in their decisions (compare, among many other cases, O'Donnell v. the United Kingdom, no. 16667/10, §§ 52-58, 7 April 2015; Český and Kotík v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 76800/01, 7 April 2009; Trifontsov v. Russia (dec.), no. 12025/02, 9 October 2012; Lawless v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012; and Sellick and Sellick v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18743/06, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 8824/09

  EL KHOURY v. GERMANY and 1 other application

  Der Zeuge war also weder abwesend (siehe Al-Khawaja und Tahery, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 153 und 159 und Lawless./. das Vereinigte Königreich [Entsch.], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44324/11, Rdnr. 8, 16. Oktober 2012), noch lehnte er die Beantwortung materieller Fragen ab (siehe Vidgen./. die Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 29353/06, Rdnr. 16, 10.
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously accepted on several occasions that a witness's state of health or the fact that he or she had been undergoing in-patient treatment might be a valid reason for his or her absence from the trial and for the reading of pre-trial statements as evidence (see, for example, Bobeş v. Romania, no. 29752/05, § 39, 9 July 2013, and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  As a result, she did not warn the jury as to the limitations inherent in evidence which had not been subjected to full cross-examination or to the dangers in accepting that evidence (see Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44324/11, §§ 35-36, 16 October 2012; contrast Simon Price, cited above, § 130).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 26540/08

  [ENG]

  Following the Court's judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, the Court will consider whether there was a good reason for the refusal of the applicant's request for V. to be heard; whether the evidence given by him was the sole or decisive basis for the applicant's conviction; and whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors, including the existence of strong procedural safeguards, which permitted a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence (see Vronchenko, cited above, § 57, and D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), § 46, no. 25307/10, 2 April 2013, with further references, mutatis mutandis, to Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 112-113, 3 May 2012; McGlynn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 21, no. 40612/11, 16 October 2012; and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 25, no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 59632/09

  [ENG]

  Following the Grand Chamber's judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, the Court will consider whether there was a good reason for the rejection of the applicant's request to hear E.; whether the evidence given by her was the sole or decisive basis for the applicant's conviction; and whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors, including the existence of strong procedural safeguards, which permitted a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence (see D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), § 46, no. 25307/10, 2 April 2013, with further references, mutatis mutandis, to Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 112-113, 3 May 2012; McGlynn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 21, no. 40612/11, 16 October 2012; and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 25, no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 23789/09

  [ENG]

  The question in each case is whether there are sufficient counterbalancing factors in place, including measures that permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence to take place (see also, McGlynn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 21, no. 40612/11, 16 October 2012; and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 25, no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10

  [ENG]

  Following the Grand Chamber's judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, the Court will consider whether there was a good reason for the rejection of the applicant's request to hear R.; whether the evidence given by her was the sole or decisive basis for the applicant's conviction; and whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors, including the existence of strong procedural safeguards, which permitted a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence to take place (see also, mutatis mutandis, Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 112 and 113, 3 May 2012; McGlynn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 21, no. 40612/11, ECHR 16 October 2012; and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 25, no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 22382/07

  YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  The Court has previously accepted on several occasions that a witness's state of health or the fact that he or she has been undergoing inpatient treatment might be a valid reason for his or her absence from a trial and for reading out his or her pre-trial statements as evidence (see, for example, Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012, and Bobeş v. Romania, no. 29752/05, § 39, 9 July 2013).