Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOSSA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 47986/99
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  They further maintained that in such a case "it was open to the national court, subject to the rights of the defence being respected, to have regard to the statements obtained by the police... in particular if corroborated by other evidence before it" (cf. Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, § 22).

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses" unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  The Court readily agrees that it would have been preferable for J.S.-T. to have been heard in person, but her unavailability could not be allowed to block the prosecution, the appropriateness of which was, moreover, not for the European Court to determine (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 28).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Unterpertinger v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-33; Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, 27 February 2001; Solakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  With respect to statements of witnesses who proved to be unavailable for questioning in the presence of the defendant or his counsel, the Court recalls that paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken together with paragraph 3 requires the Contracting States to take positive steps so as 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, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  VISSER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  Evidence obtained from a witness under conditions in which the rights of the defence cannot be secured to the extent normally required by the Convention should, however, be treated with extreme care (see Visser v. the Netherlands, no. 26668/95, § 44, 14 February 2002; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 53, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 59895/00

  CALABRO v. ITALY and GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  Under these circumstances, the Polish authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence (see, Calabro v. Italy and Germany (dec.), no. 59895/00, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  Evidence obtained from a witness under conditions in which the rights of the defence cannot be secured to the extent normally required by the Convention should, however, be treated with extreme care (see Visser v. the Netherlands, no. 26668/95, § 44, 14 February 2002; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 53, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses" unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 69116/01

  MAYALI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  However, impossibilium nulla est obligatio; provided that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of diligence in their efforts to award the defendant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question, the witnesses" unavailability as such does not make it necessary to discontinue the prosecution (see, in particular, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21; Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39209/02, 5 April 2005; Mayali v. France, no. 69116/01, § 32, 14 June 2005; Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Un constat de non-violation s'impose lorsque le témoin n'ayant pas fait l'objet d'un interrogatoire contradictoire n'est pas un témoin-clé, c'est-à-dire lorsque « la condamnation de l'accusé n'est pas fondée uniquement ou dans une mesure déterminante'sur la déposition de celui-ci (voir Gossa c. Pologne, no 47986/99, § 63, 9 janvier 2007 ; A.M. c. Italie, no 37019/97, § 25, CEDH 1999-IX ; Saïdi c. France, 20 septembre 1993, §§ 43-44, série A no 261-C ; voir aussi la jurisprudence sur les « témoins anonymes ", notamment Kok c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 43149/98, CEDH 2000-VI ; et, a contrario, Unterpertinger c. Autriche, 24 novembre 1986, §§ 28-33, série A no 110).