Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'KANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.1999 - 30550/96

  Thus, Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see the Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.1999 - 30550/96

  It is not, as a general rule, for the Court to substitute its own assessment of the evidence made by a domestic court save in circumstances where the domestic court's assessment was arbitrary or capricious, or the system of guarantees or safeguards which applied in the assessment of the reliability of confession evidence were manifestly inadequate (see the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34).

• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25703/11

  DVORSKI c. CROATIE

  In such circumstances it would be difficult for me to conclude that the proceedings as a whole were unfair (compare O'Kane v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30550/96, 6 July 1999), since all the applicant's rights were adequately secured during the trial and his confession was not the sole, let alone the decisive, evidence in the case and as such did not call into question his conviction and sentence (compare Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 187, ECHR 2010, and, by contrast, Martin, cited above, §§ 95-96).
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11

  DVORSKI v. CROATIA

  La Cour estime donc que, si le requérant n'a pas été représenté par un avocat choisi en toute connaissance de cause au cours de son interrogatoire par la police, le procès ne s'en est pas trouvé globalement inéquitable pour autant (voir, à titre de comparaison, O'Kane c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 30550/96, 6 juillet 1999), étant donné que les droits du requérant ont tous été adéquatement protégés au cours du procès et que ses aveux n'étaient pas la preuve à charge unique, et encore moins décisive, ce qui ne permet donc pas de remettre en cause sa condamnation et sa peine (voir, à titre de comparaison, Gäfgen c. Allemagne [GC], no 22978/05, § 187, CEDH 2010, et, par contraste, Martin c. Estonie, no 35985/09, §§ 95-96, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

  BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Ce dont le requérant se plaint, au fond, n'est pas d'avoir été privé de conseils juridiques qui lui auraient permis de choisir entre garder le silence et répondre aux questions des policiers, mais plutôt d'avoir prononcé des déclarations l'incriminant après la fin de la période d'ajournement et avant l'arrivée de son solicitor (O'Kane c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 30550/96, 6 juillet 1999, non publiée, et Harper c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 33222/96, 14 septembre 1999, non publiée).
• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  SARANCHOV v. UKRAINE

  In such circumstances it would be difficult for me to conclude that the proceedings against the applicant were unfair (compare O'Kane v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30550/96, 6 July 1999), since all the applicant's rights were adequately secured during the trial and his confession was not the sole, let alone the decisive, evidence in the case and as such did not call into question his conviction and sentence (compare Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 187, ECHR 2010, and, by contrast, Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, §§ 95-96, 30 May 2013).