Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 30539/96

  This situation is different from the Schenk case where the evidence - also a tape of a telephone call - had been obtained illegally (cf. Eur. Court HR, the Schenk v. Switzerland of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 30539/96

  That right means that each party must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other (cf. Eur. Court HR, the Brandstetter v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 27, paras. 66-67).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 30539/96

  As the requirements of the third paragraph of Article 6 (Art. 6) are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Commission will consider these complaints in the light of the two provisions taken together (cf. e.g., Eur. Court HR, the Melin v. France judgment of 22 June 1993, Series A no. 261-A, p. 11, para. 21; Eur. Court HR, the Hadjianastassiou v. Greece of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 16, para. 31).

 
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 30539/96

  The Commission's task, under the Convention, is to ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair (cf. Eur. Court HR, the Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, p. 56, para. 43; the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 34).
• EKMR, 05.04.1994 - 21283/93

  TYLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 30539/96

  As regards the applicant's claim that the prosecution used the evidence of Dr. Lewis on technical issues related to missile technology and jamming, notwithstanding the fact that he was not an expert on missile technology, the Commission recalls that it is not competent to deal with any application alleging errors of fact or law have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf., e.g., No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77 p. 81).
• EGMR, 22.06.1993 - 12914/87

  MELIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 30539/96

  As the requirements of the third paragraph of Article 6 (Art. 6) are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Commission will consider these complaints in the light of the two provisions taken together (cf. e.g., Eur. Court HR, the Melin v. France judgment of 22 June 1993, Series A no. 261-A, p. 11, para. 21; Eur. Court HR, the Hadjianastassiou v. Greece of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 16, para. 31).