Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CONDRON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 6-2 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-3-b et 6-3-c Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CONDRON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No separate issue under Art. 6-2 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 35718/97
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97

  Admittedly defects occurring at a trial may be remedied by a subsequent procedure before a court of appeal and with reference to the fairness of the proceedings as whole (see the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, §§ 34 and 39).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97

  It was able to assess for itself the probative value of that information in the light of the arguments of the defence which was by that stage in possession of the information and to determine whether the availability of that information at trial would have disturbed the jury's verdict (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 65, ECHR 2000-II).

• BVerfG, 06.09.2016 - 2 BvR 890/16

  Die Verwertung des Schweigens zum Nachteil des Angeklagten hindert die …

  Seither entspricht es der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs, dass das Schweigerecht des Beschuldigten durch Art. 6 EMRK nicht absolut gewährleistet wird und es nicht von vornherein einen Verstoß gegen Art. 6 EMRK darstellt, wenn das Schweigen des Beschuldigten zu dessen Nachteil verwertet wird, sondern dass stets eine Einzelfallbetrachtung vorgenommen werden muss (vgl. EGMR, Condron v. United Kingdom, Urteil vom 2. Mai 2000, Nr. 35718/97, §§ 55 ff.; EGMR, Beckles v. United Kingdom, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2002, Nr. 44652/98, §§ 57 ff.; EGMR, O'Donnell v. United Kingdom, Urteil vom 7. April 2015, Nr. 16667/10, §§ 48 ff.).
• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 31827/96

  Verstoß gegen die Grundsätze des fairen Verfahrens wegen des Zwangs der Vorlegung …

  With reference, mutatis mutandis, to Condron v. the United Kingdom (no. 35718/97, § 55, ECHR 2000-V), the Government concluded that the requests for information did not breach the requirements of a fair trial.
• EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 44652/98

  BECKLES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In the Government's submission in the case of Condron v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 May 2000, no. 35718/97, § 38, ECHR 2000-V), the case of R. v. Doldur is authority for the proposition that the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a prima facie case of guilt before inferences may be drawn under section 34 of the 1994 Act.

  The Government disputed the applicant's assertion with reference to the principles laid down by the Court in its Condron v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 May 2000 (no. 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V).

 
• EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00

  CHADWICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The interpretation given by the domestic courts to section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as well as the specimen direction applicable at the relevant time are described in the Court's Condron v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V) and Beckles v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 44652/98, 10 November 2002).

  The Court recalls that the right to silence is not an absolute right (see Condron v. United Kingdom (no. 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V, §§ 56-57).

• EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 42456/98

  TOMLINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Government submitted in the Condron v. the United Kingdom case (judgment of 2 May 2000, no. 35718/97, to be published in ECHR 2000-V) that the case of R. v. Doldur is authority for the proposition that the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a prima facie case of guilt before inferences may be drawn under section 34 of the 1994 Act.

  The Government dispute the applicant's arguments with reference to the principles stated by the Court in its Condron v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 May 2000 (no. 35718/97, to be published in ECHR-2000).

• EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 44652/98

  BECKLES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In the Government's submission in the case of Condron v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 May 2000, no. 35718/97, § 38, to be published in ECHR 2000-V), the case of R. v. Doldur is authority for the proposition that the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a prima facie case of guilt before inferences may be drawn under section 34 of the 1994 Act.

  The Government dispute these arguments and refer in this connection to the principles laid down by the Court in its Condron v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 May 2000 (no. 35718/97, to be published in ECHR 2000-V).

• EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 39389/98

  KAVANAGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Government submitted in the Condron v. the United Kingdom case (judgment of 2 May 2000, no. 35718/97, to be published in ECHR 2000-V) that the case of R. v. Doldur is authority for the proposition that the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a prima facie case of guilt before inferences may be drawn under section 34 of the 1994 Act.

  The Government state with reference to the principles laid down in the Court's Condron v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 May 2000 (application no. 35718/97, to be published in ECHR 2000-V) that the direction given to the jury in the instant case was much more specific than that given in the Condron case and limited much more directly the adverse inferences that could be drawn against the applicant.

• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND

  It is recalled that silence maintained in response to questions "clearly calling for an explanation" can be taken into account although that negative inference cannot be the "sole or main" basis for a conviction (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Condron v. the United Kingdom, no. 35718/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 48539/99

  ALLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  This letter made reference to the Court's judgment in Condron v. the United Kingdom of 2 May 2000 (no. 35718/97 [Section 3], ECHR 2000-V), where a direction by a judge to a jury concerning inferences to be drawn from an accused's silent had been found to infringe Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 29522/95

  I.J.L., G.M.R. AND A.K.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Les requérants soulignent la pertinence de l'arrêt Condron c. Royaume-Uni (no 35718/97, CEDH 2000-V) pour leur grief de ce chef.
• EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 27968/05

  LADBROKES WORLDWIDE BETTING v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29592/96

  DOLASAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 50015/99

  HEWITSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.06.2002 - 41661/98

  BUTLER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 12710/04

  BETSON AND COCKRAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 72819/01

  LATIF and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 31582/02

  CONSTANTINOU v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 64714/01

  SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00

  CHALKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 16290/04

  CORCUFF c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 23414/02

  WOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 42011/98

  OYSTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 37983/97

  OWEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM