Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SVETINA v. SLOVENIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SVETINA v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 38059/13

  The Court notes in this connection that it has already found in several cases where investigative measures interfering with Article 8 rights were not "in accordance with the law" that the admission in evidence of information obtained thereby did not, in the circumstances of the cases, conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Schenk, cited above, §§ 45-49; Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 76-81, ECHR 2001-IX).

  Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V, partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Loucaides; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Tulkens, § 5; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Spielmann joined by Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Casadevall and Mijovic, § 12; and Dragos Ioan Rusu v. Romania, no. 22767/08, 31 October 2017, joint partly concurring opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque and Bosnjak, § 4.

• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 38059/13

  The Court notes in this connection that it has already found in several cases where investigative measures interfering with Article 8 rights were not "in accordance with the law" that the admission in evidence of information obtained thereby did not, in the circumstances of the cases, conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Schenk, cited above, §§ 45-49; Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 76-81, ECHR 2001-IX).

  Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V, partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Loucaides; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Tulkens, § 5; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Spielmann joined by Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Casadevall and Mijovic, § 12; and Dragos Ioan Rusu v. Romania, no. 22767/08, 31 October 2017, joint partly concurring opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque and Bosnjak, § 4.

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 38059/13

  The Court reiterates that, while Article 6 § 1 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, since this is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140, and Lhermitte v. Belgium [GC], no. 34238/09, § 83, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR - 9533/23 (anhängig)

  VINCETIC v. SLOVENIA

  Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention because of the domestic courts' refusal to grant the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage relating to the unlawful search of his home (compare, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 223, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and, mutatis mutandis, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 88-101, 15 January 2015, and Svetina v. Slovenia, no. 38059/13, § 60, 22 May 2018)?.