Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEQUEIRA contre le PORTUGAL

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEQUEIRA v. PORTUGAL

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  In this context, it is not for the Court to determine whether certain items of evidence were obtained unlawfully, but only to examine whether the "unlawfulness" in question resulted in the infringement of another right protected by the Convention (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  However, the subsequent use of their statements by the court of trial to found a conviction is a different matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Kostovski v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, p. 21, § 44, and Teixeira de Castro, cited above, pp. 1462-63, § 35).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  Although the rise in organised crime undoubtedly requires that appropriate measures be taken, the right to a fair administration of justice nevertheless holds such a prominent place in a democratic society (see Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 15, § 25) that it cannot be sacrificed for the sake of expedience.
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  Lüdi v. Switzerland (judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238) concerned a sworn police officer whose involvement was known to the investigating judge; in that case, the Swiss authorities, acting on information from the German police, had opened a preliminary investigation.

• EGMR, 05.02.2008 - 74420/01

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Tatprovokation; agent provocateur; V-Mann; …

  The Court, for its part, must ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among other authorities, Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports of Judments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 711, § 50; Teixeira de Castro, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1462, § 34; Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; and Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

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

  In the case of Sequeira v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI) the Court found that there had been no police incitement, basing its finding on the following considerations:.
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that initial steps have been taken to commit the acts constituting the offence for which the applicant is subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas, cited above, §§ 63 and 64; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).

  [22] Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Vanyan, cited above, § 49; and Khudobin, cited above, § 134.

 
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 66152/14

  KUZMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Government maintained that the present cases involved "sting operations", which were widely acceptable and free from incitement to commit an offence under the criteria set out in the Court's case-law (they referred to Calabro v. Italy and Germany (dec.), no. 59895/00, ECHR 2002-V; Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; and Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  DAVITIDZE v. RUSSIA

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15251/07

  OPRIS c. ROUMANIE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'elle doit rechercher s'il y avait des indices concrets et objectifs justifiant une opération d'investigation spéciale (voir, en ce sens, Sequeira c. Portugal (déc.), no 73557/01, CEDH 2003-VI, Shannon c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 67537/01, CEDH 2004-IV, et Malininas c. Lituanie, no 10071/04, § 36, 1er juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 21218/09

  PRADO BUGALLO c. ESPAGNE

  Accordingly, their activity did not go beyond that of an undercover officer, as was the case in Sequeira (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 55546/09

  SAMPECH c. ITALIE

  Z ne saurait donc être qualifié d'agent provocateur, son activité n'ayant pas outrepassé celle d'un agent infiltré (voir, mutatis mutandis, Lüdi c. Suisse, 15 juin 1992, série A no 238, Calabrò, décision précitée, et Sequeira c. Portugal (déc.), no 73557/01, CEDH 2003-VI ; voir également, a contrario, Teixeira de Castro, précité, Ramanauskas, précité, Sepil, précité ; et voir aussi, pour une affaire dans laquelle il a été impossible, pour la Cour, de vérifier s'il y avait eu provocation policière, Lagutin et autres c. Russie, nos 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 et 7451/09, §§ 103-111, 24 avril 2014).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 19267/05

  ULARIU c. ROUMANIE

  Dans les circonstances de l'affaire et compte tenu du comportement de L.S., il y avait des raisons objectives de croire que le requérant voulait commettre l'infraction de corruption active (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sequeira c. Portugal (déc.), no 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI) ce qui a justifié la décision du parquet d'autoriser T.C. à rencontrer L.S. et le requérant.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that initial steps have been taken to commit the acts constituting the offence for which the applicant is subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas, cited above, §§ 63 and 64, and Malininas, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 23782/06

  CONSTANTIN AND STOIAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 16463/08

  SANDU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 74355/01

  MILINIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  TRIFONTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 35686/02

  ÜNEL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 46227/07

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 48405/07

  CHALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 54449/07

  ROGOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 42616/08 (anhängig)

  SAZONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 43089/07

  CHERKASOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 55519/09 (anhängig)

  VALEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 5608/09 (anhängig)

  SALIKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 52651/07

  BEREZIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 54706/07

  KRIVDA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 10192/09 (anhängig)

  IVANTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 22504/06

  ANTONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 6193/07

  MORDVINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 6226/07

  FRANTSUZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 18561/09 (anhängig)

  MANYAKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 13746/09 (anhängig)

  FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 52131/09 (anhängig)

  MUJAJ v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15

  YAKHYMOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 43873/10

  TORAN AND SCHYMIK v. ROMANIA
• EGMR - 48809/07

  MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 18589/07

  KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 7716/09 (anhängig)

  DIMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA