CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 avril 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. April 1991 Asch v. Austria - 12398/86 Judgment 26.4.1991 Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Criminal conviction based in part on the statements made by a witness before a police officer and read out at the trial, the witness in question having refused to testify in court: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] In present case accused's cohabitee had withdrawn her complaint against him and then refused to testify in court – trial court could have regard to her testimony, subject to rights of defence being respected. Applicant had available to him other means of defence, although he did not have recourse thereto (discussion of testimony in question, submission of his version of events, examination of police officer, application for other witnesses to be called). Contested statements did not constitute only item of evidence on which trial court based its decision to convict – fact that it was impossible to question witness at the hearing did not violate rights of the defence or deprive accused of a fair trial. Conclusion : no violation of paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 taken together (seven votes to two).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes