Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHUVALOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 39820/08, 14942/09
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 39820/08
• EGMR - 39820/08 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 39820/08

  Turning to the complaint that the applicant's arrest and search had been carried out in breach of his judicial immunity (see the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure above) and that therefore the evidence obtained as a result of the use of these measures had been unlawful, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among other authorities, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 05.02.2008 - 74420/01

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Tatprovokation; agent provocateur; V-Mann; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 39820/08

  However, on account of the risk of police incitement entailed by such techniques, their use must be kept within clear limits (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, § 51, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 39820/08

  Thus, the disclosure of the information in question can reasonably be regarded as being "necessary in a democratic society" for the legitimate aim of ensuring the right of the public to receive information (see, mutatis mutandis, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 38, Series A no. 308, and A.K. v. the Netherlands, no. 24774/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 39820/08

  Turning to the complaint that the applicant's arrest and search had been carried out in breach of his judicial immunity (see the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure above) and that therefore the evidence obtained as a result of the use of these measures had been unlawful, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among other authorities, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 43075/08

  ASBL EGLISE DE SCIENTOLOGIE c. BELGIQUE

  Les déclarations litigieuses ne sont pas davantage transcrites dans des documents imputables incontestablement aux membres du parquet mis en cause par la requérante, tels que des actes de la procédure ou des communiqués de presse, comme c'était le cas par exemple dans les affaires Marziano (précitée), Poncelet c. Belgique (no 44418/07, 30 mars 2010) ou Shuvalov c. Estonie (no 39820/08 et 14942/09, 29 mai 2012).