Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERKAPIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Adversarial trial) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (35)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 36927/04

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  As to the extent to which the domestic courts relied on such evidence when convicting the applicant, the Court notes that the Zagreb County Court relied on the statements I.G.H., V.S. and N.S. had made to the police when it convicted the applicant (see paragraph 45) and that it had no other concrete and direct corroborative evidence concerning the applicant's guilt (see Vaquero Hernández and Others v. Spain, nos. 1883/03, 2723/03 and 4058/03, § 130, 2 November 2010; see also, by contrast, Bostancioglu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36927/04, 7 June 2011; and Sevinç, cited above).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  In this context the Court reiterates that, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, its task is to establish whether the evidence produced for or against the accused was presented in such a way as to ensure a fair trial (see Barım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 34536/97, 12 January 1999), irrespective of the type or gravity of the charges held against an accused since the public interest in investigation and punishment of a particular offence cannot justify measures which extinguish the very essence of an applicant's defence rights (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 97, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see, amongst many others, Sevinç and others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8074/02, 8 January 2008; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009; and Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, § 49, 25 February 2010).

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV; and Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 84, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  Article 6 may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A, and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-II).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  Remedies available to a litigant at the domestic level are considered effective if they prevent the alleged violation or prevent it from continuing, or if they provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  Although it is not the Court's task to verify whether the domestic courts made any substantive errors in that assessment, it is nevertheless required to review whether the courts gave reasons for their decisions in respect of any objections concerning the evidence produced (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, § 211, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  Nevertheless, the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires only that an applicant make normal use of remedies which are effective, sufficient and accessible in respect of his Convention grievances (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004, and John Sammut and Visa Investments Limited v. Malta (dec.), no. 27023/03, 28 June 2005).
• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 26137/04

  BARTA v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  Therefore, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 12.01.1999 - 34536/97

  BARIM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8074/02

  SEVINC ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY

  From the perspective of the rights of the defence, issues under Article 6 may arise in terms of whether the evidence produced for or against the defendant was presented in such a way as to ensure a fair trial (see Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 73, 25 April 2013), because a fair trial presupposes adversarial proceedings and equality of arms; thus, possible flaws in the process of administration of evidence may be examined under Article 6 § 1 (see Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, § 157, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

  It is further mindful that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32; Imbrioscia, cited above, § 38; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 30, Series A no. 76; and Salduz, cited above, § 55) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko, cited above, § 112; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  In such circumstances any other complaint by the applicant about the composition of the trial bench or a lack of impartiality of the Dubrovnik County Court judges would have been theoretical and illusory, whereas the Convention is intended to guarantee rights which are practical and effective (see, amongst many other authorities, Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 78, 25 April 2013).

• EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND

  In this context, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, as must the circumstances in which it was obtained and whether these circumstances cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see, for instance, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 89, 10 March 2009, and Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 72-73, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  DOGAN v. TURKEY

  Furthermore, the general principles concerning the use of evidence given by co-defendants in the absence of a lawyer have been summarised in Stephens v. Malta (no. 3) (no. 35989/14, §§ 64-67, 14 January 2020) and Erkapić v. Croatia (no. 51198/08, §§ 72-73, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 52850/12

  ABAY v. TURKEY

  It further pertains to the admission into evidence of the incriminating statements made by the applicant's co-accused, whose right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage was also restricted under the same domestic law (see Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 88, 25 April 2013; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2001-II and compare with Dominka v. Slovakia, no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018).

  Have the requirements of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention been satisfied as regards the admission into evidence of the incriminating statements made by the applicant's co-accused to the police which were then retracted at a later stage of the proceedings (see, for instance, Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 88, 25 April 2013; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2001-II; and compare with Dominka v. Slovakia, (dec.) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3 April 2018)?.

• EGMR, 20.10.2026 - 33372/19

  GÜR v. TURKEY

  In particular, domestic courts must ensure that the applicant was effectively heard and that their decisions are supported by relevant and sufficient reasoning (see Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 74-89, 25 April 2013, and Dilek Genç v. Türkiye, nos. 74601/14 and 78295/14, § 83, 21 January 2025).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Bykov, cited above, § 90, and Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 72, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08

  RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

  At this point, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 82, ECHR 2015 and the references therein) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 116, 1 April 2010; and Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  MILJEVIC v. CROATIA

  As accused in criminal proceedings, as a matter of fair trial, the applicant had a right to give his own version of the events and to cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence adduced, including the credibility of the witnesses heard during the proceedings (see, for instance, Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 78 in fine, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 48879/19

  CHAYKOVSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  SANADER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 13289/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 3021/14

  SEKERIJA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 6970/15

  ZHANG v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 41115/14

  TONKOV c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 41954/10

  ?žEKER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 10688/12

  SEVIM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51355/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 84212/17

  OCAKLi v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28359/08

  INAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 58080/11

  INAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 6683/10

  SARAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 24369/11

  ÖZTA?ž v. TURKEY and 1 other application
• EGMR, 28.02.2023 - 66614/10

  KOHEN v. TURKEY and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 29656/07

  MADATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 14630/12

  DOMINKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 15315/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 37637/18

  ÇIÇEKLER v. TURKEY