Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SÜLEYMAN v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SÜLEYMAN v. TURKEY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (26)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 30265/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  In practice, that decision appears to have meant that the identity of the witness would be concealed (Article 58 § 2) and that he would give evidence in the absence of the parties via an audiovisual link in accordance with Article 58 § 3 (see, for a similar situation Papadakis v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 50254/07, § 90, 26 February 2013, and Dončev and Burgov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30265/09, § 51, 12 June 2014).

  Against the above background and bearing in mind that there were no good reasons for the absence of witness X from the trial, the Court is likewise not convinced that the applicant waived his rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention to test the truthfulness of the only direct eyewitness in the present case (see Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others, §§ 87-9, 12 May 2016, where the Court found that the applicants had waived their right to cross-examine the absent witnesses whose evidence had been neither the sole nor the decisive evidence, on the basis of their failure to object to the reading out their statements and to put questions to them; Sarkizov and Others, cited above, § 57, for a consideration of the waiver of the applicant's right to pose questions to the anonymous witness during the pre-trial stage; and Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 85, 10 April 2012 where no such waiver was in place; and compare Dončev and Burgov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30265/09, 12 June 2014, where the applicant's lawyer's refusal to put written questions to the protected witness despite having been aware of his identity was held against him).

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  The Court dismisses the Government's first argument in the light of the fact that witness X was a "prosecution witness" and unlike the situation with defence witnesses, the applicant was not required to demonstrate the importance of personal appearance and questioning of a prosecution witness (see Cevat Soysal, cited above, § 77, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 712, 25 July 2013).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  The Court reiterates that the Contracting States are required to take positive steps, in particular to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146).

• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 53413/11

  SIK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  At this juncture, the Court notes that it has already held in cases against Turkey, albeit in the context of complaints related to Article 5 of the Convention, that the mere reproduction of the wording contained in the statutory provisions cannot be considered as sufficient reasoning to implement a protective measure which clearly lacked an individualised assessment taking account of the particular circumstances of a given case (see, among many other authorities, Şık v. Turkey, no. 53413/11, § 62, 8 July 2014).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  29900/96 and 3 others, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 28338/07

  GÜNER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Under these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the Government have been able to show with sufficient clarity that applications to the same effect would have had any different outcome given the trial court's stance on that matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, § 39, 4 September 2018, and compare A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 27, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Under these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the Government have been able to show with sufficient clarity that applications to the same effect would have had any different outcome given the trial court's stance on that matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Ömer Güner v. Turkey, no. 28338/07, § 39, 4 September 2018, and compare A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 27, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 57837/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Notwithstanding that conclusion, the Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Soytemiz v. Turkey, no. 57837/09, §§ 63-64, 27 November 2018).
• EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07

  POLETAN v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Against the above background and bearing in mind that there were no good reasons for the absence of witness X from the trial, the Court is likewise not convinced that the applicant waived his rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention to test the truthfulness of the only direct eyewitness in the present case (see Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others, §§ 87-9, 12 May 2016, where the Court found that the applicants had waived their right to cross-examine the absent witnesses whose evidence had been neither the sole nor the decisive evidence, on the basis of their failure to object to the reading out their statements and to put questions to them; Sarkizov and Others, cited above, § 57, for a consideration of the waiver of the applicant's right to pose questions to the anonymous witness during the pre-trial stage; and Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 85, 10 April 2012 where no such waiver was in place; and compare Dončev and Burgov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30265/09, 12 June 2014, where the applicant's lawyer's refusal to put written questions to the protected witness despite having been aware of his identity was held against him).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 59453/10

  Against the above background and bearing in mind that there were no good reasons for the absence of witness X from the trial, the Court is likewise not convinced that the applicant waived his rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention to test the truthfulness of the only direct eyewitness in the present case (see Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others, §§ 87-9, 12 May 2016, where the Court found that the applicants had waived their right to cross-examine the absent witnesses whose evidence had been neither the sole nor the decisive evidence, on the basis of their failure to object to the reading out their statements and to put questions to them; Sarkizov and Others, cited above, § 57, for a consideration of the waiver of the applicant's right to pose questions to the anonymous witness during the pre-trial stage; and Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 85, 10 April 2012 where no such waiver was in place; and compare Dončev and Burgov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30265/09, 12 June 2014, where the applicant's lawyer's refusal to put written questions to the protected witness despite having been aware of his identity was held against him).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 47082/12

  PAIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2020 - 53791/11
• EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06

  PALCHIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 54146/09

  BÁTÄšK AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 27962/10

  ASANI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 20963/08

  BOYETS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 22963/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.05.2011 - 6642/05

  ILYADI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 32605/11

  ROZUMECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 14212/10

  SCHOLER v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10

  SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 25088/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 50254/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 46099/06

  ELLIS AND SIMMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND MARTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 56440/15

  SNIJDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  As regards the counterbalancing factors which permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of the untested witness evidence, the Court found the following elements of relevance in the assessment of the adequacy of counterbalancing factors: the trial court's approach to the untested evidence; the availability and strength of corroborative evidence supporting the untested witness statements; and the procedural measures taken to compensate for the lack of opportunity to directly cross-examine the witness at the trial (see Schatschaschwili, cited above, §§ 125-31 and 151; Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 85, 17 November 2020; and Keskin, cited above, § 65).

  In particular, in paragraph 65, it observes that while the judgments in the cases of Al-Khawaja and Tahery and Schatschaschwili (both cited above) concerned absent rather than anonymous witnesses, the Court has held that the problems raised by the two types of witnesses are not different in principle, since each results in a potential disadvantage for the defendant due to the inability to test the probity and credibility of the witnesses and to test the truthfulness and reliability of their evidence (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, § 127, and Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 62, 17 November 2020, and the references cited therein).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  DOGAN v. TURKEY

  Rn. 108 The Court further reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 110, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 37954/21

  SKRCHESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Rn. 48 Accordingly, regard being had to the absence of a claim and having discerned no exceptional circumstances, the Court considers that it is not called upon to make any awards under any head (compare, for example, Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, §§ 105-9, 17 November 2020, and Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, § 59, 30 March 2017, with further references).

• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 31226/09

  AYKAÇ v. TÜRKİYE

  Rn. 91 Notwithstanding that conclusion, the Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Soytemiz v. Turkey, no. 57837/09, § 64, 27 November 2018, and Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 110, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 17.07.2025 - 46673/18

  OPALENKO v. UKRAINE

  Second, though the evidence of M. was not the sole or decisive basis for the defendant's conviction, it could nevertheless be considered as "carrying significant weight" (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, §§ 63-66, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  PAMUK c. TURQUIE

  Furthermore, the Court has already held that the distance between two cities cannot be regarded of itself and in the abstract as a good reason for failure by judges to ensure the examination of witnesses in person (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 78, 17 November 2020) and that the Contracting States are required to take positive steps, in particular to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him.
• EGMR, 16.12.2025 - 22171/22

  HUSSEIN v. TÜRKIYE

  It further reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 110, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 17.06.2025 - 9601/18

  YALDIZ v. TÜRKIYE

  Notwithstanding that conclusion, the Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 110, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 76619/11

  ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  The Court further reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Süleyman v. Turkey, no. 59453/10, § 110, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 37404/18

  OGUZ v. TURKEY

  Rn. 17 The principles regarding the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses, including anonymous ones, can be found in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011), Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) and Süleyman v. Turkey (no. 59453/10, §§ 61-66, 17 November 2020).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 84212/17

  OCAKLi v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 50239/11

  ÇOBAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 16373/18

  TIRYAKI v. TÜRKIYE and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 17.06.2025 - 19664/18

  SAKA v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 10.06.2025 - 16537/18

  CÖMERT v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 09.07.2024 - 2577/19

  BAYGELDI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 54292/18

  LIPARTIA AND BERDZENISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62013/12

  ÇONGAR c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 39513/11

  ALAT v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 41333/21 (anhängig)

  ÇOBAN v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 12368/23 (anhängig)

  GÜMÜS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32043/11

  ORAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 34176/11

  YARDIMCI v. TURKEY