Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Access to relevant files;Adequate ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  Furthermore, they clearly raised, in view of the particular circumstances of the current case, fundamentally important legal issues (see, mutatis mutandis, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, §§ 170-71, 7 May 2021).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf, the essential aim of that provision, as indicated by the words "under the same conditions" is to ensure a full "equality of arms" in the matter (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 91, Series A no. 22; Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B; and Murtazaliyeva, see above, § 139).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  It was, thus, the appellate court's duty to use all the means at its disposal to dispel any doubts as to the validity and nature of the applicant's allegations, particularly in view of the fact that these allegations had not been adequately examined in the course of the jury trial (see, for example, Timofeyev v. Russia [Committee], no. 16887/07, §§ 22-24, 14 November 2017; contrast with Talmane v. Latvia, no. 47938/07, §§ 31-32, 13 October 2016, where the Court found that the relevant complaints of the applicant were duly examined by two court instances with full jurisdiction and that the lower courts provided proper reasoning; see also Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 87-88, 11 April 2013, and Mrazovic and Others v. Croatia ((dec.) [Committee], no. 25149/19, § 42, 17 December 2019)).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 46182/08

  LAZU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  The manner of application of Article 6 § 1 to proceedings after appeal depends on the special features of the proceedings involved; account must be taken of the entirety of the procedural system in the domestic legal order and of the role of the particular court therein (see, inter alia, Botten v. Norway, 19 February 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; and Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 46182/08, § 33, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  The present case is, thus, different in this respect from the previous cases against Georgia examined by the Court which concerned a standard cassation procedure that had existed prior to the enactment of the new CCP in October 2010 (see Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, § 77, 18 March 2021, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 47938/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  It was, thus, the appellate court's duty to use all the means at its disposal to dispel any doubts as to the validity and nature of the applicant's allegations, particularly in view of the fact that these allegations had not been adequately examined in the course of the jury trial (see, for example, Timofeyev v. Russia [Committee], no. 16887/07, §§ 22-24, 14 November 2017; contrast with Talmane v. Latvia, no. 47938/07, §§ 31-32, 13 October 2016, where the Court found that the relevant complaints of the applicant were duly examined by two court instances with full jurisdiction and that the lower courts provided proper reasoning; see also Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 87-88, 11 April 2013, and Mrazovic and Others v. Croatia ((dec.) [Committee], no. 25149/19, § 42, 17 December 2019)).
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 16887/07

  TIMOFEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  It was, thus, the appellate court's duty to use all the means at its disposal to dispel any doubts as to the validity and nature of the applicant's allegations, particularly in view of the fact that these allegations had not been adequately examined in the course of the jury trial (see, for example, Timofeyev v. Russia [Committee], no. 16887/07, §§ 22-24, 14 November 2017; contrast with Talmane v. Latvia, no. 47938/07, §§ 31-32, 13 October 2016, where the Court found that the relevant complaints of the applicant were duly examined by two court instances with full jurisdiction and that the lower courts provided proper reasoning; see also Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 87-88, 11 April 2013, and Mrazovic and Others v. Croatia ((dec.) [Committee], no. 25149/19, § 42, 17 December 2019)).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  As the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, the Court will examine each of these complaints under those two provisions taken together (see, among many others, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 100, ECHR 2015, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 169, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  When assessing whether the accused had adequate time for the preparation of his defence, particular regard has to be had to the nature of the proceedings, as well as the complexity of the case and stage of the proceedings (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 41, Series A no. 58, and Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 51, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  However, whatever method is chosen, it should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment on them (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 91, 18 December 2018; see also Zahirović v. Croatia, no. 58590/11, § 42, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  ALMASI v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 27.02.2020 - 21447/11

  LOBZHANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 27245/95

  CONNOLLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  RUSISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  A judgment delivered by a jury may be appealed against only on points of law (see Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, § 21, 16 November 2021).

  The relevant general principles were summarised in Murtazaliyeva v. Russia ([GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139, 144-49 and 158-68, 18 December 2018; see also Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, §§ 51-55, 16 November 2021).

  Finally, I should add that in the present case and in Kikabidze v. Georgia (no. 57642/12, 16 November 2021), the Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of insufficiently reasoned decisions declaring the applicants' appeals on points of law inadmissible.

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  The nature and workings of the jury trial system introduced in Georgia on 1 October 2010 were described in Kikabidze v. Georgia (no. 57642/12, §§ 21-24, 16 November 2021) and Rusishvili v. Georgia (no. 15269/13, §§ 27-30, 30 June 2022).

  In the present case the Tbilisi Court of Appeal entertained the applicant's appeal on points of law on the merits and rejected it in a reasoned manner, answering all the main arguments advanced by him (contrast Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, § 20, 16 November 2021, and Rusishvili, cited above, § 26).

• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 19920/20

  SKOBERNE v. SLOVENIA

  She, being the ultimate guardian of the fairness of the proceedings, was expected to carefully measure the consequences of her procedural decisions on the applicant's defence rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, § 59, 16 November 2021).

• EGMR, 18.03.2025 - 6696/20

  AYDIN v. TURKEY

  Moreover, neither the Court of Cassation nor the Constitutional Court remedied the trial court's failure to discharge its duty to render a reasoned judgment under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which was a crucial shortcoming that went to the merits of the case (see Zhang v. Ukraine, no. 6970/15, § 73, 13 November 2018, and Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, § 65, 16 November 2021, on the duty of the domestic courts to provide adequate reasons for their decisions, inherent in Article 6 § 1).
• EGMR - 2834/21 (anhängig)

  JANKULOSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  (d) did the applicant have adequate time and facilities to prepare her defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b), given the schedule of the hearings in view of the specific personal circumstances of the applicant (see, for example, Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, §§ 43-44, 16 November 2021)?.
• EGMR - 15902/21 (anhängig)

  GRUEVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  (c) did the applicant have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b), given the scheduling and length of the hearings held by the trial court, and his alleged lack of access to the audio-recordings which served as a basis for his conviction (see, for example, Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, §§ 40-4, 16 November 2021)?.
• EGMR - 12860/24 (anhängig)

  ABULASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  (b) Was the applicant afforded the opportunity to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as those against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see, for general principles, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139-68, 18 December 2018; see also, Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, §§ 51-60, 16 November 2021)?.