Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=25307/10
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 16:15:56
Document Index: 428308572

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 35', '§ 50', '§ 50', '§ 49', '§ 62', '§ 54', '§ 57', '§ 46', '§ 112', '§ 21', '§ 25', '§ 46', '§ 112', '§ 21', '§ 25', '§ 51', '§ 26', '§ 64']

EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10 - dejure.org
EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10
https://dejure.org/2013,6796
EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25307/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,6796)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.04.2013 - 25307/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,6796)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. April 2013 - 25307/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,6796)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,6796) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
D.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 6, Art. 35 MRK
EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 9154/10
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Al-Khawaja-Test; Recht auf ein …
127. An additional safeguard in that context may be to show, at the trial hearing, a video recording of the absent witness's questioning at the investigation stage in order to allow the court, prosecution and defence to observe the witness's demeanour under questioning and to form their own impression of his or her reliability (see A.G. v. Sweden, cited above; Chmura v. Poland, no. 18475/05, § 50, 3 April 2012; D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25307/10, § 50, 2 April 2013; Yevgeniy Ivanov, cited above, § 49; Rosin v. Estonia, no. 26540/08, § 62, 19 December 2013; and Gonzáles Nájera v. Spain (dec.), no. 61047/13, § 54, 11 February 2014).
EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 26540/08
ROSIN v. ESTONIA
Following the Court's judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, the Court will consider whether there was a good reason for the refusal of the applicant's request for V. to be heard; whether the evidence given by him was the sole or decisive basis for the applicant's conviction; and whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors, including the existence of strong procedural safeguards, which permitted a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence (see Vronchenko, cited above, § 57, and D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), § 46, no. 25307/10, 2 April 2013, with further references, mutatis mutandis, to Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 112-113, 3 May 2012; McGlynn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 21, no. 40612/11, 16 October 2012; and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 25, no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).
We are of the opinion that this is contrary to the Court's approach in similar cases (see, for example, D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25307/10, 2 April 2013, and Gani v. Spain, no. 61800/08, 19 February 2013).
EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 59632/09
VRONCHENKO v. ESTONIA
Following the Grand Chamber's judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, the Court will consider whether there was a good reason for the rejection of the applicant's request to hear E.; whether the evidence given by her was the sole or decisive basis for the applicant's conviction; and whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors, including the existence of strong procedural safeguards, which permitted a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence (see D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), § 46, no. 25307/10, 2 April 2013, with further references, mutatis mutandis, to Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 112-113, 3 May 2012; McGlynn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 21, no. 40612/11, 16 October 2012; and Lawless v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 25, no. 44324/11, 16 October 2012).
In the very recent case of D.T. v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 25307/10, 2 April 2013), a Chamber of the Third Section found that, although the applicant had been unable to put questions to the victim and although the victim's evidence had been decisive for the finding of guilt, there had been sufficient counterbalancing measures present to ensure that the applicant had a fair trial.
EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 14000/12
T.K. v. LITHUANIA
As regards the experts, the Court notes that, unlike in the case of D.T. v. the Netherlands, in the present case the experts who examined the children merely gave their opinions in writing without their being questioned at the court hearing (compare and contrast D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25307/10, § 51, 2 April 2013).
EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 61047/13
GONZÁLEZ NÁJERA v. SPAIN
This report gave a detailed opinion of the victims" credibility (see D.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25307/10, §§ 26 and 51, 2 April 2013; compare Vronchenko, cited above, § 64).