Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  J.B. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 44438/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  The Court reiterates that as the guarantees of Article 6 § 3 (d) are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in the first paragraph of that Article, the complaint must be examined under the two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 40, 8 June 2006).

  In the event that the impossibility to examine the witnesses or have them examined is due to the fact that they are missing, the authorities must make a reasonable effort to secure their presence (see Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 43, 8 June 2006).

• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  In particular, 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 A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42965/98

  BERISHA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  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, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  Article 6 § 1 taken together with 6 § 3 also requires the Contracting States to take positive steps to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  Moreover, no measures were taken by the domestic authorities to counterbalance the handicaps under which the defence laboured (see, a contrario, S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 50, ECHR 2002-V, where the applicant's lawyer was able to put questions, at least indirectly, to a child victim of sexual abuse).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  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, 09.11.2006 - 18885/04

  KASTE AND MATHISEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  18885/04; and 21166/04, § 61, ECHR 2006-XIII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 35450/04

  MELICH ET BECK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 44438/06

  Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes that in several cases where it has found similar violations as in the present case it has held that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction because the applicants had the possibility of requesting the reopening of the proceedings at the domestic level (see, for example, Krasniki, cited above, § 93; Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, no. 35450/04, § 59, 24 July 2008; Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 29, 13 November 2003; and Kaste and Mathisen v. Norway, nos.