Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Respect for private life) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) Article ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Dragojevic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  The Court has already held that although the courts could, in the criminal proceedings, consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan, cited above, § 44; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; and Goranova-Karaeneva, cited above, § 59).

  Nonetheless, the admission in evidence of information obtained thereby did not in the circumstances of a particular case conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Khan, cited above, §§ 25-28; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-IX; and Bykov, cited above, §§ 94-105).

• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 31360/10

  TARBUK v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  In this regard, the Court has already held that in order to comply with the principle of subsidiarity, before bringing complaints against Croatia to the Court applicants are in principle required to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity to remedy their situation (see Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, § 46, 21 June 2011; Camovski v. Croatia, no. 38280/10, § 27, 23 October 2012; Bajic v. Croatia, no. 41108/10, § 66, 13 November 2012; Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 81, 11 December 2012; Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 29, 11 December 2012; Damjanac v. Croatia, no. 52943/10, § 70, 24 October 2013; and Simecki v. Croatia, no. 15253/10, § 29, 30 April 2014).

  The applicant thereby provided the national authorities with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely of putting right the violations alleged against them (see Lelas, cited above, § 51; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144-46, ECHR 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, § 29, 28 October 2010; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 48, 29 May 2012; and Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012).

• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  As to the second test (objective), it means determining whether, quite apart from the personal conduct of a judge, there are ascertainable facts which may raise doubts as to his/her impartiality (see, for example, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 26, Series A no. 257-B; Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 58, Reports 1998-III).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  What matters is the extent and nature of the pre-trial measures taken by the judge (see Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, § 30, Series A no. 255-A).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  The Court also emphasises that in this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see, amongst many others, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  The mere fact that a trial judge has already taken pre-trial decisions in the case, including decisions relating to detention, cannot in itself justify fears as to his impartiality; only special circumstances may warrant a different conclusion (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 51, Series A no. 154; Sainte-Marie v. France, no. 12981/87, § 32, 16 December 1992; and Romenskiy v. Russia, no. 22875/02, § 27, 13 June 2013).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  Thus, the domestic law must be sufficiently clear in its terms to give individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which public authorities are empowered to resort to any such measures (see, for example, Malone, cited above, § 67; Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-B; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 93, ECHR 2006 XI; and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 76, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  Furthermore, the Court considers that the applicant, having raised the issue in substance in his constitutional complaint, did raise before the domestic courts the complaint which he has submitted to the Court (see, by contrast, MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 137, 21 June 2011, and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, for example, Malone, cited above, § 54; Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 25, ECHR 2000-V; and Draksas v. Lithuania, no. 36662/04, §§ 52-53, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 1128/17

  Meng ./. Deutschland - Konventionsverletzung durch Beteiligung eines nicht …

  47.  Der Gerichtshof weist erneut darauf hin, dass sich die Besorgnis der Unparteilichkeit nicht schon allein damit begründen lässt, dass ein Tatrichter frühere Entscheidungen wegen derselben Straftat erlassen hat (siehe u.a. Hauschildt ./. Dänemark, 24. Mai 1989, Rdnr. 50, Reihe A Band 154, und Dragojevi? ./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 68955/11, Rdnr. 114, 15. Januar 2015, zu vor der Hauptverhandlung ergangenen Entscheidungen, oder Thomann ./. Schweiz, 10. Juni 1996, Rdnrn. 32-37, Reports 1996"III, zum Wiederaufnahmeverfahren gegen einen in Abwesenheit verurteilten Angeklagten).
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 19920/20

  SKOBERNE v. SLOVENIA

  In this connection, the Court understands that the domestic courts' assessment of the impugned measures - including that conducted by the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 55 above) - was closely linked to the question of admissibility of evidence thus obtained (compare Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 99 and 100, 15 January 2015).
• EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-349/21

  Eine Entscheidung zur Genehmigung der Telefonüberwachung muss keine …

  Das vom vorlegenden Gericht angeführte Urteil des EGMR vom 15. Januar 2015, Dragojevic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2015:0115JUD006895511), vermag es nicht, die oben in den Rn. 58 bis 61 dargelegten Erwägungen in Frage zu stellen.

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  This is of particular relevance as the contemporaneous provision of reasons is a vital safeguard against abusive surveillance (see Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 88-101, 15 January 2015; Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 97-98, 7 November 2017; and Liblik and Others v. Estonia, nos. 173/15 and 5 others, §§ 137-41, 28 May 2019).
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  SIGURÐUR EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.10.2022 - C-349/21

  HYA u.a. (Motivation des autorisations des écoutes téléphoniques) - Vorlage zur …

  19 EGMR, 15. Januar 2015, Dragojevic/Kroatien, (CE:ECHR:2015:0115JUD006895511, §§ 127 und 128 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 46530/09

  URGESI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Pareille situation ne suffit toutefois pas, en soi, à emporter violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, les doutes du requérant quant à l'impartialité du juge devant être objectivement justifiés dans les circonstances de la cause (Meng c. Allemagne, no 1128/17, § 52, 16 février 2021, et Dragojevic c. Croatie, no 68955/11, §§ 120-122, 15 janvier 2015).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 35285/08

  IRFAN GÜZEL c. TURQUIE

  Cette partie de l'allégation écartée, la Cour constate que la mise sur écoutes de la ligne téléphonique du requérant constitue bien une « ingérence d'une autorité publique'au sens de l'article 8 § 2 de la Convention dans l'exercice par l'intéressé de son droit au respect de sa vie privée et de sa correspondance (Klass et autres c. Allemagne, 6 septembre 1978, § 41, série A no 28, et Dragojevic c. Croatie, no 68955/11, § 78, 15 janvier 2015).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 21200/05

  AKHLYUSTIN v. RUSSIA

  Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 78108/14

  PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

  Dans chaque cas, les doutes du requérant quant à l'impartialité du juge doivent être objectivement justifiés (Dragojevic c. Croatie, no 68955/11, §§ 116-123, 15 janvier 2015).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 43478/11

  HAMBARDZUMYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 30083/10

  KARABEYOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  KONSTANTIN MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  PLECHLO v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  BIKIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05

  MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 6250/10

  PAKSÜT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 3021/14

  SEKERIJA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 39234/08

  FILYUTKIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 01.03.2018 - 50049/12

  PARAZAJDER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 72384/14

  FIGUEIREDO TEIXEIRA c. ANDORRE
• EGMR - 3258/22 (anhängig)

  ? ARIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 9533/23 (anhängig)

  VINCETIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR - 3262/22 (anhängig)

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 58112/09

  KAÇAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 3205/16 (anhängig)

  PORT INVEST B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS