Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  V. v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 57 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits Not necessary to examine the preliminary objection Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 and 6-3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 40412/98
• EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  On 2 January 1997 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting an oral hearing on count III. He also requested, relying on Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 36), that the police officer in charge of the criminal investigation, Superintendent J.M, be ordered under Chapter 17, Article 12, of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken) to produce the telephone metering information.

  The Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set out in paragraph 1 (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 34, § 33).

• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  Here, it must also be emphasised that the Court exerts its supervisory role subject to the principle of subsidiarity (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 103, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  It is, therefore, essential that the Court examine the procedure whereby the plea of entrapment was determined in this case, to ensure that the rights of the defence were adequately protected (see Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  Whilst it is clear that Article 6 § 2 governs criminal proceedings in their entirety, and not solely the examination of the merits of the charge (see, for example, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, pp. 15-16, § 30; Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308), the right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 § 2 arises only in connection with the particular offence "charged".
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, pp. 27-28, §§ 66-67).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  Whilst it is clear that Article 6 § 2 governs criminal proceedings in their entirety, and not solely the examination of the merits of the charge (see, for example, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, pp. 15-16, § 30; Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308), the right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 § 2 arises only in connection with the particular offence "charged".
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  Whilst it is clear that Article 6 § 2 governs criminal proceedings in their entirety, and not solely the examination of the merits of the charge (see, for example, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, pp. 15-16, § 30; Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308), the right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 § 2 arises only in connection with the particular offence "charged".

• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Abgrenzung der unzulässigen Tatprovokation von …

  39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X; V. v. Finland, no. 40412/98, § 72, 24 April 2007; and Constantin and Stoian, cited above, §§ 56-57).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12

  MATANOVIC v. CROATIA

  However, if the Court's findings under the substantive test are inconclusive owing to a lack of information in the file, the lack of disclosure or contradictions in the parties" interpretations of events (see Bannikova, cited above, §§ 52 and 67; see also Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X, and V. v. Finland, no. 40412/98, § 80, 24 April 2007) or if the Court finds, on the basis of the substantive test, that an applicant was subjected to incitement, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it will be necessary for the Court to proceed, as a second step, with the procedural test of incitement.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.07.2011 - C-27/09

  Frankreich / Volksmudschaheddin-Organisation Iran - Rechtsmittel - Restriktive …

  Vgl. Urteile des EGMR (Große Kammer) vom 16. Februar 2000, Rowe und Davis/Vereinigtes Königreich (Beschwerde Nr. 28901/95, 2000-II, Ziff. 61), Fitt/Vereinigtes Königreich (Beschwerde Nr. 29777/96, 2000-II, Ziff. 45), und (4. Sektion) vom 24. April 2007, V./Finnland (Beschwerde Nr. 40412/98, Ziff. 75).

 
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, in cases where the lack of file disclosure or the conflicting nature of the parties" interpretation of events precludes the Court from establishing with a sufficient degree of certainty whether the applicant was subjected to police incitement, the procedural aspect becomes decisive (see Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X; V. v. Finland, no. 40412/98, § 72, 24 April 2007; and Constantin and Stoian v. Romania, nos.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.10.2007 - C-450/06

  Varec - Öffentliche Aufträge - Vergabenachprüfungsverfahren - Beweise mit …

  21 - Vgl. z. B. Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Urteil V./Finnland vom 24. April 2007, Nr. 40412/98, § 75 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.
• EGMR, 25.05.2010 - 60151/09

  ASSOCIATION DE DEFENSE DES ACTIONNAIRES MINORITAIRES (A.D.A.M.) c. FRANCE

  A l'instar des juridictions nationales, la Cour reconnaît qu'en l'espèce, il existe un intérêt légitime à ce que des informations mettant en jeu le secret des affaires demeurent confidentielles dans la mesure où leur divulgation serait de nature à causer un préjudice aux héritiers (voir, mutatis mutandis, pour des affaires dans lesquelles la Cour a admis la nécessité de ne pas divulguer certaines preuves non utilisées au cours d'une procédure pénale, Rowe et Davis c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 28901/95, § 61, CEDH 2000-II et V. c. Finlande, no 40412/98, § 75, 24 avril 2007).