Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CUPIAL v. POLAND

  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)

  CUPIAL v. POLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006 IX, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006 IX, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11

  The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case in question (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017).

• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11

  In examining the fairness of criminal proceedings, the Court has held in particular that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, the domestic courts fall short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11

  Nor is it called upon to rule on the guilt or innocence of a person convicted by the domestic courts, that matter being within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 55, ECHR 2015, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 188, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 13185/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11

  However, as already stated above (see paragraphs 55-57 above) it is within the Court's jurisdiction to assess whether the proceedings as a whole, including the obligation of the domestic courts to give reasons for their judgments, were in compliance with the Convention (see also Rostomashvili v. Georgia, no. 13185/07, § 58, 8 November 2018).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 14175/16

  JÓHANNES BALDURSSON v. ICELAND and 3 other applications

  Against this background, the Court concludes that the first applicant's submissions, calling into question the compliance officer's credibility, raised a specific, pertinent and important point in the context of the criminal case against him and called for an explicit reply (compare Cupiał v. Poland, no. 67414/11, § 63, 9 March 2023; Rostomashvili v. Georgia, no. 13185/07, § 59, 8 November 2018; and Krasulya, cited above, § 52).
• EGMR, 16.07.2026 - 74259/17

  POUROS c. GRÈCE

  In examining the fairness of criminal proceedings, the Court has held, in particular, that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, the domestic courts fall short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 337-41, 26 September 2023; Zahariev v. North Macedonia, no. 26760/22, §§ 49-50, 5 November 2024; and Cupiał v. Poland, no. 67414/11, § 57, 9 March 2023).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10

  [ENG]

  The Court considers that these arguments related to the core of the criminal case against them and called for a very specific and explicit reply (compare Cupiał v. Poland, no. 67414/11, § 63, 9 March 2023).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 3473/19

  GÜNDÜZ v. TURKEY

  Rn. 54 In that connection, the Court notes that a finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, due to the failure of the domestic courts to give a reasoned judgment, does not automatically necessitate an award of compensation in order to provide the applicant with adequate redress for the breach of that provision (see, among other authorities, Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 203, 27 October 2020, and Rusishvili v. Georgia, no. 15269/13, § 84, 30 June 2022, where the findings of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the domestic courts' failure to deliver a reasoned judgment constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction, and compare, among other authorities, Cupiał v. Poland, no. 67414/11, § 72, 9 March 2023, and Loucaides v. Cyprus, no. 60277/19, § 55, 18 October 2022, where awards of non-pecuniary damage were made for breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention stemming from the domestic courts' failure to deliver reasoned judgments).
• EGMR, 18.03.2025 - 44069/14

  IURCOVSCHI ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Rn. 38 De l'ensemble des considérations qui précèdent, la Cour ne saurait conclure que les requérants n'ont pas été véritablement « entendus'par la Cour suprême de justice et que sa décision pêchait par manque de motivation suffisante (voir, a contrario, pour des exemples de violation de l'obligation de motivation des décisions, Boldea c. Roumanie, no 19997/02, §§ 31-35, 15 février 2007, et Cupiał c. Pologne, no 67414/11, §§ 58-66, 9 mars 2023).