Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=22228/06
Timestamp: 2017-03-25 13:38:29
Document Index: 385826158

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 20', '§ 240', '§ 244', '§ 251', '§ 250', '§ 261', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 118', '§ 175', '§ 70', '§ 118', '§ 58', '§ 3', '§ 40', '§ 119', '§ 147', '§ 118', '§ 33', '§ 36', '§ 33', '§ 118', '§ 39', '§ 57', '§ 118', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 20', '§ 240', '§ 244', '§ 251', '§ 250', '§ 261']

Rechtsprechung: 22228/06 - dejure.org
Rechtsprechung EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05; 22228/06 Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; § 240 StPO; § 244 Abs. 2 StPO; § 251 StPO; § 250 StPO; § 261 StPORecht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: Mindestrechte und Abwägung; prinzipielles Verbot der Verwertung als entscheidendes oder einziges Beweismittel; besonders vorsichtige Beweiswürdigung; Zeugenbegriff; anonyme und nicht erreichbare Zeugen; legitime Gründe für Rechtseinschränkungen bei zurechenbarer und allgemeiner Furcht des Zeugen; Gesamtrecht und Gesamtbetrachtung; R. v. Horncastle und Human Rights Act); Sondervotum Sajó und Karakas
AL-KHAWAJA ET TAHERY c. ROYAUME-UNIArt. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. dNon-violation de l'art. 6-1+6-3-d Violation de l'art. 6-1+6-3-d Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)
AL-KHAWAJA AND TAHERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOMArt. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. dNo violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
AL-KHAWAJA AND TAHERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institu[DEU] No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d;Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Tahery et Al-Khawaja v. United Kingdom[08.01.2008]
EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05; 22228/06
Wird zitiert von ... (82) EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 14212/10 SCHOLER v. GERMANYReferring to the criteria established in the Court's case-law in respect of the lack of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution (in particular, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118 ss., ECHR 2011), the Government argued that there had both been valid reasons not to allow the applicant to question the police informer and the undercover agent in court and there had been sufficient factors compensating for the lack of opportunity for the applicant to put questions to them.In making this assessment the Court will look at the proceedings as a whole having regard to the rights of the defence but also to the interests of the public and the victims that crime is properly prosecuted (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 175) and, where necessary, to the rights of witnesses (see, amongst many authorities, Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 70, Reports 1996-II; Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011; and Sievert v. Germany, no. 29881/07, § 58, 19 July 2012).First of all, it is pertinent to recall that the Grand Chamber judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011) heavily relied upon by the majority in the instant case, was crafted in the context of specific provisions of English law and also in the context of the criticism levelled by English courts at the Court's "sole or decisive rule" with regard to evidence which an accused is not able to test in open court through cross-examination, as provided for in Article 6 § 3 (d).
EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 9154/10 Verletzung des Grundsatzes des fairen Verfahrens und der Waffengleichheit bzgl. …Er erinnert in diesem Zusammenhang auch daran, dass die Zulässigkeit von Beweismitteln durch innerstaatliches Recht zu regeln und Sache der innerstaatlichen Gerichte ist, und dass die Aufgabe des Gerichtshofs allein darin besteht, zu prüfen, ob das Verfahren fair geführt wurde (siehe Al-Khawaja und Tahery ./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 26766/05 und 22228/06, Rdnr. 118, ECHR 2011).Al-Khawaja und Tahery ./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 26766/05 und 22228/06, ECHR 2011 sowie die darin aufgeführte Rechtsprechung[GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 26766/05 und 22228/06, ECHR 2011 sowie die darin aufgeführte Rechtsprechung.
EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 61800/08 GANI v. SPAINThe Government further contended that from the Court's reasoning in many of its judgments, such as those in the cases of Krasniki v. the Czech Republic (no. 51277/99, 28 February 2006) and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011), it could be inferred that fear of death or physical injuries on the part of a witness or other person, or even the fear that significant economic losses might be incurred, constitute relevant considerations that trial courts may take into account in dispensing a witness from appearing in trial.When a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on statements that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see, in particular, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 119, ECHR 2011).26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011).
EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 57592/08 HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOMAl-Khawaja et Tahery c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 26766/05 et 22228/06, § 147, CEDH 2011.
EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 59632/09 VRONCHENKO v. ESTONIAFor this reason, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaints under the two provisions taken together (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, and Aigner v. Austria, no. 28328/03, § 33, 10 May 2012).It is true that the judgment sets out an accurate description of the relevant case-law, with an emphasis on the body of principles developed by the Grand Chamber in the case of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011).
EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 26171/07 Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Strafverfahren durch ausbleibende Gewährung …Darüber hinaus geht es dem Gerichtshof bei Artikel 6 Abs. 1 in erster Linie darum, die Fairness des Strafverfahrens in seiner Gesamtheit einzuschätzen (siehe aktuell hierzu Al-Khawaja und Tahery ./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 26766/05 und 22228/06, Rdnr. 118, ECHR 2011, mit weiteren Nachweisen).
EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 26540/08 ROSIN v. ESTONIAFor this reason, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaints under the two provisions taken together (see, amongst other authorities, Gani v. Spain, no. 61800/08, § 36, 19 February 2013; Aigner v. Austria, no. 28328/03, § 33, 10 May 2012; and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).In our view, although the applicant was unable to put questions to the victim and although the victim's evidence was decisive for the finding of guilt during the pre-trial proceedings, there were sufficient counterbalancing measures present to ensure that the applicant had a fair trial, in line with the situation in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, 15 December 2011), and with D.T. v. the Netherlands and Gani..
EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10 MATYTSINA v. RUSSIAExceptions 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 the proceedings (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X; Al-Khawaja and Tahery, [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, must be further refined, based on the joint assessment of the following criteria: (1) the nature of the ground hindering the witness's presence at the trial hearing; (2) the kind of public authority before which the witness's prior testimony was given; (3) the presence or absence of the defence lawyer at that specific hearing; (4) the existence of other mechanisms to safeguard the defence's right to impugn the fairness of the gathering of testimony, the credibility of the witness and the reliability of his or her testimony; (5) the weight of the read-out testimony of the non-cross-examined witness in the trial court's judgment; and (6) the waiving of the right to cross-examine the absent witness.
EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08 DONOHOE v. IRELANDIt had to be determined whether the evidence of the Chief Superintendent was sole or decisive (Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011): the nature of the evidence in question as well as the significance of evidence other than the belief evidence, would be important factors.The majority further hold that they must be guided by the general principles articulated by the Court in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011) (paragraphs 78-79).
EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 4184/10 HORNCASTLE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM26766/05 and 22228/06, 20 January 2009.26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, on 27 April 2012 in R. v. Ibrahim.
EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 16412/06 ALEKSANDR VALERYEVICH KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 14932/09 KOSTECKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03 PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 44324/11 LAWLESS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11 DVORSKI v. CROATIA
EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11 VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 29222/11 FUCHS v. GERMANY
EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 2775/07 RUDNICHENKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05 NECHTO v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 55546/09 SAMPECH c. ITALIE
EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05 ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23880/05 SALIKHOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 42937/08 JANYR c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 32211/07 CÜNEYT POLAT c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06 CdSNIEKS v. LATVIA
EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 12036/05 SICA c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 35985/09 MARTIN v. ESTONIA
EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05 GABRIELYAN v. ARMENIA
EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 15065/07 ARAS v. TURKEY (No. 2)
EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 17362/03 CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY
EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 28328/03 AIGNER v. AUSTRIA
EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 5699/11 LUCIC v. CROATIA
EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 45872/06 YURIY VOLKOV v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04 KARPENKO v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07 EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 80563/12 NASTASE c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 20077/04 SULDIN v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 63117/09 NIKOLITSAS c. GRÈCE
EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 27781/06 VADUVA v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 5592/05 PRAJINA c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 33882/05 SANDRU v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 30465/06 C.B. v. AUSTRIA
EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08 TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 37981/06 SARKIZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 17735/06 CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 23789/09 BRZUSZCZYÅƒSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 28.02.2013 - 22163/08 MESESNEL v. SLOVENIA
EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 50254/07 PAPADAKIS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 25088/07 PESUKIC v. SWITZERLAND
EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 18027/05 STEFANCIC v. SLOVENIA
EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05 DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 43609/07 FAFROWICZ v. POLAND
EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 46099/06 ELLIS AND SIMMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND MARTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 18475/05 CHMURA v. POLAND
EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 26504/06 COLAC v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 23858/08 DUMITRESCU c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27945/07 POTCOAVA v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 29752/05 BOBES c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 27100/03 YEVGENIY IVANOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10 D.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS
EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 23280/09 SARP KURAY c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 29353/06 VIDGEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 50541/08 IBRAHIM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 12512/07 SHIMAN c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 43952/09 BOSTI c. ITALIE
EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 44280/07 PANAIT c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 35842/05 VARARU c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 4380/09 GAROFOLO v. SWITZERLAND
EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 10948/05 CAMPISI c. ITALIE
EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 40612/11 MCGLYNN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 22555/09 STANCULESCU v. ROMANIA AND CHITAC v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 315/09 A.G. v. SWEDEN
EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 54091/08 PERVUSHIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 6290/04 VDOVINS v. LATVIA
EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 47448/13 MARIN v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 30356/06 ROBINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 32328/09 PALAZZOLO v. ITALY
EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 51297/08 SENTÜRK v. TURKEY
EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 18743/06 SELLICK AND SELLICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Rechtsprechung EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 26766/05, 22228/06 Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; § 240 StPO; § 244 Abs. 2 StPO; § 251 StPO; § 250 StPO; § 261 StPORecht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der EMRK; Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (gesetzlicher Schuldbeweis; Verbot der Verwertung als entscheidendes oder einziges Beweismittel; besonders vorsichtige Beweiswürdigung; Zeugenbegriff; anonyme und nicht erreichbare Zeugen; Rechtseinschränkungen bei zurechenbarer Furcht des Zeugen; Gesamtrecht und Gesamtbetrachtung)
AL-KHAWAJA AND TAHERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM(englisch)
AL-KHAWAJA ET TAHERY c. ROYAUME-UNI(französisch)
Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom[19.05.2010]
Wird zitiert von ... BVerfG, 08.10.2009 - 2 BvR 547/08 Faires Verfahren; Recht auf unmittelbare und konfrontative Befragung von …[ Redaktioneller Hinweis: Zu den zum Teil deutlich abweichenden Maßstäben des EGMR vgl. nur die Entscheidung EGMR HRRS 2009 Nr. 459 mwN.].
Rechtsprechung EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 26766/05, 22228/06 Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
AL-KHAWAJA ET TAHERY CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNIInformations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
AL-KHAWAJA AND TAHERY AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOMInformation given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)