Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GABRIELYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance Article 6 - Right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Gabrielyan v. Armenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  On the other hand, the Court considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, if any, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; and Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 55, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  On the other hand, the Court considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, if any, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; and Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 55, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 62710/00

  LUNGOCI c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  On the other hand, the Court considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, if any, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; and Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 55, 26 January 2006).

 
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  In the case of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant should as far as possible be put in the position he would have been in had the requirements of this provision not been disregarded (see, mutatis mutandis, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 127, ECHR 2006-...; and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 89, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, among other authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  The Court reiterates that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of proceedings (see Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 36, Series A no. 191-A; Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III; and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  Notably, the fact that a witness is absent from the country where the proceedings are conducted is in itself not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (d), which requires the Contracting States to take positive steps to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when that witness makes his statement or at a later stage of proceedings (see Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 36, Series A no. 191-A; Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III; and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  In that connection it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective; this is particularly so of the rights of the defence in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial, from which they derive (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 9154/10

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Al-Khawaja-Test; Recht auf ein …

  In Fällen, bei denen es um die Abwesenheit eines Zeugen wegen Unerreichbarkeit geht, verlangt der Gerichtshof vom Tatgericht, dass es alle zumutbaren Anstrengungen unternommen hat, um das Erscheinen des Betroffenen sicherzustellen (Gabrielyan./. Armenien, Nr. 8088/05, Rdnr. 78, 10. April 2012, Tseber./. Tschechische Republik, Nr. 46203/08, Rdnr. 48, 22.

  Diesen Ansatz hat der Gerichtshof bereits in den Rechtssachen Gabrielyan./. Armenien (Nr. 8088/05, Rdnrn. 77 und 84, 10. April 2012), Rudnichenko./. Ukraine (Nr. 2775/07, Rdnrn. 105-110, 11. Juli 2013), Nikolitsas./. Griechenland (Nr. 63117/09, Rdnr. 35, 11.

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA

  However, it has repeatedly noted that departure abroad does not in itself constitute sufficient reason to justify the absence of the witness concerned from the trial (see Seton, cited above, § 61; see also Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 78, 10 April 2012, and Al Alo v. Slovakia, no. 32084/19, §§ 48-52, 10 February 2022).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 41954/10

  ELIF NAZAN SEKER v. TURKEY

  In other words, his appeal was devoid of any substantive factual or legal arguments (see Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 66 in fine, 10 April 2012).

 
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18550/13

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  As the Court has already held on previous occasions, in cases such as the present one, the most appropriate form of redress would, as a rule, be to reopen the proceedings in due course and re-examine the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair trial (see Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 104, 10 April 2012; Avetisyan v. Armenia, no. 13479/11, § 75, 10 November 2016; and Asatryan v Armenia, no. 3571/09, §§ 73-74, 27 April 2017).
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08

  TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Ainsi, elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 §§ 1 et 3 d) de la Convention dans des affaires où les autorités internes n'avaient adopté aucune mesure positive en vue de localiser le témoin et d'assurer la possibilité pour la défense de l'interroger (voir, par exemple, Zentar, précité, § 30 ; Bonev c. Bulgarie, no 60018/00, § 44, 8 juin 2006 ; Breukhoven c. République tchèque, no 44438/06, §§ 49 et 56, 21 juillet 2011), ou encore dans des cas où les autorités avaient adopté certaines mesures, mais insuffisantes ou inadéquates à la lumière des circonstances de l'espèce (voir, par exemple, Nechto c. Russie, no 24893/05, §§ 126-127, 24 janvier 2012 ; Gabrielyan c. Arménie, no 8088/05, §§ 81-83, 10 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 47082/12

  PAIC v. CROATIA

  The fact that a witness is absent from the country where the proceedings are being conducted is in not itself sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (d), which requires the Contracting States to take positive steps to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses testifying against him (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 81, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 50142/13

  RASTODER v. SLOVENIA

  Such measures form part of the diligence which the Contracting States must exercise in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 are enjoyed in an effective manner (see Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 81, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 58956/12

  SULA c. ITALIE

  En ce qui concerne le cas d'un témoin devenu introuvable, la Cour exige du tribunal du fond qu'il ait fait tout ce que l'on pouvait raisonnablement attendre de lui pour assurer la comparution de l'intéressé (Tseber c. République tchèque, no 46203/08, § 48, 22 novembre 2012, Gabrielyan c. Arménie, no 8088/05, § 78, 10 avril 2012, et Lucic c. Croatie, no 5699/11, § 79, 27 février 2014).
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 27962/10

  ASANI v.

  29900/96 and 3 others, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII and Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 81, 10 April 2012); they must have actively searched for such witnesses (see Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, § 24, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 3977/13

  BEN MOUMEN c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle que lorsque l'absence du témoin dépend de cette raison, elle exige du tribunal du fond qu'il ait fait tout ce que l'on pouvait raisonnablement attendre de lui pour assurer la comparution de l'intéressé (Gabrielyan c. Arménie, no 8088/05, § 78, 10 avril 2012 ; Tseber c. République tchèque, no 46203/08, § 48, 22 novembre 2012 ; et Kostecki c. Pologne, no 14932/09, §§ 65-66, 4 juin 2013).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  FAYSAL PAMUK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 26504/06

  COLAC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 26073/13

  CAFAGNA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 35375/15

  ZELIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 9128/13

  PODLIPNÍ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC