Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 44324/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55676) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
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 ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- 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, 09.07.2015 - 8824/09
EL KHOURY v. GERMANY
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. Juli 2012). - EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16
OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA
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, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10
D.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS
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).