Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
JAAC 62.105 AI generated

Right to Appeal and Fair Trial Not Violated in Complex Case

Case Number JAAC 62.105
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Administrative Practice of Federal Authorities (VPB) (CH)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court found no violation of Article 6§3(b) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as a ten-day period to file an appeal was not unreasonably short given the defendant was represented by two experienced lawyers and had access to the judgment's essential content months before receiving the written version. The court also found no violation of Article 6§3(d) because refusing to hear a witness previously heard in another proceeding whose statements were considered, and because the defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated the need to question other witnesses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 6 § 3 let. b CEDH, Art. 6 § 3 let. d CEDH; Right to Appeal and Fair Trial Not Violated in Complex Case: The court also found no violation of Article 6§3(d) because refusing to hear a witness previously heard in another proceeding whose statements were considered, and because the defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated the need to question other witnesses.

Keywords

AI generated
right to fair trial rights of access appealability of remand decision european Convention on Human Rights human rights violations reasonable duration of the proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 6 § 3 let. b CEDH
The court found no violation of this article because the applicant's lawyers were familiar with the case and the applicant knew the essential content of the judgment well before receiving it in writing.
Art. 6 § 3 let. d CEDH
The court found no violation of this article as the refusal to hear a witness whose statements were already considered and the applicant's failure to demonstrate the necessity of hearing other witnesses did not prejudice the defense.
AI generated
JAAC 58.108
Fair Trial Not Compromised by Initial Lack of Legal Counsel

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 6 § 3 let. b CEDH

The court found no violation of this article because the applicant's lawyers were familiar with the case and the applicant knew the essential content of the judgment well before receiving it in writing.

Art. 6 § 3 let. d CEDH

The court found no violation of this article as the refusal to hear a witness whose statements were already considered and the applicant's failure to demonstrate the necessity of hearing other witnesses did not prejudice the defense.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

JAAC 62.105

Déc. rendue en anglais1 par la Comm. eur. DH le 2 juillet 1997, déclarant irrecevable la req. N° 26246/95,

H. W. K. c / Suisse

Procédure pénale pour escroquerie et faux dans les titres. Droits de l’accusé. Art. 6 § 3 let. b et d CEDH. Droit de préparer sa défense. Droit d’interroger des témoins.

- Le délai de 10 jours pour déposer un recours en nullité à la Cour de cassation pénale zurichoise n’a pas été trop court en l’espèce, car le requérant était représenté par deux avocats qui connaissaient très bien le dossier. De plus, le requérant a eu connaissance du contenu essentiel du jugement au cours de l’audience publique, soit quatre mois avant d’en recevoir un exemplaire écrit. Aucune violation de l’art. 6 § 3 let. b CEDH.

- En l’espèce, en refusant d’entendre un témoin qui avait déjà été entendu dans une autre procédure et dont les déclarations ont été prises en compte, le tribunal n’a pas violé l’art. 6 § 3 let. d CEDH. Au surplus, le requérant n’avait pas suffisamment démontré la nécessité d’interroger d’autres témoins.

Strafverfahren wegen Betruges und Urkundenfälschung. Rechte des Angeklagten. Art. 6 § 3 Bst. b und d EMRK. Recht auf Vorbereitung der Verteidigung. Recht auf Zeugenbefragung.

- Die Frist von 10 Tagen zur Einreichung einer Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde an das Zürcher Kassationsgericht ist im vorliegenden Fall nicht zu kurz gewesen, da der Beschwerdeführer von zwei Anwälten vertreten wurde,

denen der Fall sehr gut bekannt war. Ferner fand eine öffentliche Verhandlung statt, so dass der Beschwerdeführer den wesentlichen Inhalt des angefochtenen Urteils ungefähr vier Monate vor dessen schriftlichen Eröffnung gekannt hatte. Keine Verletzung von Art. 6 § 3 Bst. b EMRK.

- Im vorliegenden Fall wurde Art. 6 § 3 Bst. d EMRK durch die Weigerung des Gerichts, einen Zeugen einzuvernehmen, der bereits in einem vorhergehenden Verfahren ausgesagt hatte und dessen Aussagen berücksichtigt worden waren, nicht verletzt, zumal die Notwendigkeit der Einvernahme weiterer Zeugen vom Beschwerdeführer nicht hinreichend begründet worden war.

Procedura penale per truffa e falsità in documenti. Diritti dell’accusato. Art. 6 § 3 lett. b e d CEDU. Diritto di preparare la propria difesa. Diritto d’interrogare testimoni.

- Nella fattispecie, il termine di dieci giorni per l’inoltro di un ricorso per cassazione alla Corte di cassazione penale zurighese non era troppo breve, giacché il ricorrente era rappresentato da due avvocati che conoscevano a fondo il fascicolo. Il ricorrente è inoltre venuto a conoscenza del contenuto essenziale della decisione nel corso dell’udienza pubblica, vale a dire quattro mesi prima della notifica per scritto. Nessuna violazione dell’art. 6 § 3 lett. b CEDU.

- Nella fattispecie, rifiutando di sentire un testimone già ascoltato in un altro procedimento e le cui dichiarazioni sono state prese in considerazione il tribunale non ha violato l’art. 6 § 3 lett. d CEDU. Il ricorrente non aveva inoltre sufficientemente dimostrato la necessità di interrogare altri testimoni.

Schweizerisches Bundesarchiv, Digitale Amtsdruckschriften Archives fédérales suisses, Publications officielles numérisées Archivio federale svizzero, Pubblicazioni ufficiali digitali

JAAC 62.105 - Déc. rendue en anglais1 par la Comm. eur. DH le 2 juillet 1997, déclarant irrecevable la req. N° 26246/95, H. W. K. c / Suisse

In Verwaltungspraxis der Bundesbehörden Dans Jurisprudence des autorités administratives de la Confédération In Giurisprudenza delle autorità amministrative della Confederazione

Jahr 1998 Année Anno

Band 62 Volume Volume

Seite --- Page Pagina

Ref. No 150 003 707

Das Dokument wurde durch das Schweizerische Bundesarchiv und die Bundeskanzlei konvertiert. Le document a été digitalisé par les Archives Fédérales Suisses et la Chancellerie fédérale. Il documento è stato convertito dall'Archivio federale svizzero e della Cancelleria federale.