Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MANOLI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MANOLI v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08

  KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 56875/11

  The Court considers that those who have responsibility for deciding on the guilt or innocence of an accused ought, in principle, to be able to hear the victims, the accused and the witnesses in person and assess their trustworthiness (see, a contrario, Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, §§ 48-50, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 10890/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 56875/11

  In this connection, it notes that Article 4641 of the Moldovan Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the possibility of a retrial or reopening of the domestic proceedings where the Court has found a violation of an applicant's fundamental rights and freedoms (see Flueraş v. Romania, no. 17520/04, § 70, 9 April 2013, and Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 50, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17122/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 56875/11

  289/04 and 41194/04, § 68, 27 November 2007; and Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, § 32, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 289/04

  POPOVICI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 56875/11

  289/04 and 41194/04, § 68, 27 November 2007; and Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, § 32, 21 September 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 44896/11

  CIOBANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court refers to its case-law in the cases of Dan v. Moldova (no. 8999/07, § 34, 5 July 2011); Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 46182/08, § 43, 5 July 2016); and Manoli v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 56875/11, § 33, 28 February 2017), where, in similar circumstances, it found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 63446/13

  LOREFICE c. ITALIE

  Lorsqu'une instance d'appel est amenée à connaître d'une affaire en fait et en droit et à étudier dans son ensemble la question de la culpabilité ou de l'innocence, elle ne peut, pour des motifs d'équité du procès, décider de ces questions sans appréciation directe des moyens de preuve (Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, § 55, CEDH 2000-VIII, Popovici c. Moldova, nos 289/04 et 41194/04, § 68, 27 novembre 2007, Marcos Barrios c. Espagne, no 17122/07, § 32, 21 septembre 2010, Dan, précité, § 30, Lazu c. République de Moldova, no 46182/08, § 40, 5 juillet 2016, Manoli c. République de Moldova, no 56875/11, § 32, 28 février 2017, et, a contrario, Kashlev c. Estonia, no 22574/08, §§ 48-50, 26 avril 2016).
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 69019/11

  ZIRNĪTE v. LATVIA

  Hence, the reversal of the applicant's acquittal was not based on a reassessment of the credibility of M.R.'s testimony or a new interpretation of her evidence (contrast Ovidiu Cristian Stoica, cited above, §§ 44-45 and Manoli v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 56875/11, §§ 27-32, 28 February 2017; as well as Lorefice v. Italy, no. 63446/13, §§ 38-46, 29 June 2017; Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 46182/08, §§ 36-39, 5 July 2016; Flueraş v. Romania, no. 17520/04, §§ 56-59, 9 April 2013; Găitănaru v. Romania, no. 26082/05, §§ 31-33, 26 June 2012; and Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 42-45, 18 May 2004).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 55859/15

  LAMATIC v. ROMANIA

  In examining the reliability of A.M.D.'s testimony in that regard, the appellate court weighed in the balance factors such as its value and significance to the proceedings when corroborated by the other evidence, as well as its reliability, noting that her statements had remained consistent throughout the proceedings (see paragraph 29 above and, mutatis mutandis, Zelčs v. Latvia, no. 65367/16, § 72, 20 February 2020; see also, by way of contrast, Manoli v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 56875/11, § 30, 28 February 2017).
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 62183/16

  D'AMICO c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle que ceux qui ont la responsabilité de décider de la culpabilité ou de l'innocence de l'accusé doivent, en principe, entendre les témoins en personne et évaluer leur crédibilité (voir Manoli c. République de Moldova, no 56875/11, § 32, 28 février 2017, et, a contrario, Kashlev c. Estonie, no 22574/08, §§ 48-50, 26 avril 2016).