Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09, 19678/07, 52340/08, 7451/09, 19123/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,7923
EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09, 19678/07, 52340/08, 7451/09, 19123/09 (https://dejure.org/2014,7923)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.04.2014 - 6228/09, 19678/07, 52340/08, 7451/09, 19123/09 (https://dejure.org/2014,7923)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. April 2014 - 6228/09, 19678/07, 52340/08, 7451/09, 19123/09 (https://dejure.org/2014,7923)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,7923) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

    SEQUEIRA contre le PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    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, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Abgrenzung der unzulässigen Tatprovokation von

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    The general principles relating to the guarantees of a fair trial in the context of undercover investigative techniques used to combat drug trafficking and corruption are set out in the Court's extensive case-law summarised in the case of Bannikova v. Russia (no. 18757/06, §§ 33-65, 4 November 2010) and Veselov and Others (cited above, §§ 88-94).

    [2] See paragraphs 93 and 115 of the judgment and the previous cases of Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-47, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII; Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 49-50, 4 November 2010; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 106 and 126-127, 2 October 2012.

  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

    VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    A comparative analysis of the national systems of authorisation of undercover operations in the Council of Europe member States is summarised in Veselov and Others v. Russia (nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 50-63, 2 October 2012).

    [2] See paragraphs 93 and 115 of the judgment and the previous cases of Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-47, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII; Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 49-50, 4 November 2010; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 106 and 126-127, 2 October 2012.

  • EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

    MALININAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    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).

    [14] See Chapter II, paragraph 2, of Recommendation Rec(2005)10 of the Committee of Ministers, and Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, § 63, ECHR 2008, and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008.

  • EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

    LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    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.

    39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§ 205-224, ECHR 2009; and Bannikova, cited above, §§ 62-65.

  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Malininas cited above, § 43; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    This situation in principle calls for the adoption of general measures by the respondent State, which remains, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V).
  • EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

    S.N. v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    There will not be a fair trial, however, unless any difficulties caused to the defendant by a limitation on his rights are sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see, for example, Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 70, Reports 1996-II; Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 58, Reports 1997-III; Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27052/95, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2000-II; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-V; Botmeh and Alami v. the United Kingdom, no. 15187/03, § 37, 7 June 2007; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§ 205 et seq., ECHR 2009-...; and Leas v. Estonia, no. 59577/08, §§ 76 et seq., 6 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

    V. v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    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.
  • EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 67537/01

    SHANNON c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
    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).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 15187/03

    BOTMEH AND ALAMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 23782/06

    CONSTANTIN AND STOIAN v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

    Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d.

  • EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 54648/09

    Unzulässige Tatprovokation (Anstiftung; verbleibende Opferstellung im Sinne der

    Damit ein Verfahren im Sinne von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention fair ist, müssen alle als Ergebnis polizeilicher Provokation gewonnenen Beweismittel ausgeschlossen werden oder aber ein Verfahren mit vergleichbaren Konsequenzen muss greifen (siehe Lagutin u. a../. Russland, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 und 7451/09, Rdnr. 117, 24. April 2014 mit weiteren Verweisen).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

    Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein

    Damit ein Verfahren im Sinne von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention fair ist, müssen sämtliche infolge einer polizeilichen Anstiftung erlangten Beweismittel von der Verwertung ausgeschlossen werden, oder es muss ein Verfahren mit vergleichbaren Konsequenzen greifen (siehe Lagutin und andere./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 6228/09 und vier weitere, Rdnr. 117, 24. April 2014 mit weiteren Verweisen, und F., a.a.O., Rdnr. 64).
  • BGH, 19.05.2015 - 1 StR 128/15

    Rechtstaatswidrige Tatprovokation (Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires

    Damit in solchen Fällen das Strafverfahren im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK fair ist, müssten alle als Ergebnis polizeilicher Provokation gewonnenen Beweismittel ausgeschlossen werden oder aber ein Verfahren mit vergleichbaren Konsequenzen ("procedure with similar consequences") müsse greifen (siehe nur EGMR, Urteile vom 24. April 2014 - 6228/09 u.a. "Lagutin e.a. vs. Russia" Rn. 117 mwN; vom 23. Oktober 2014 - 54648/09 "Furcht gegen Deutschland" Rn. 64).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 40018/16

    UGURYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court has consistently found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the deficient existing procedure for authorisation and administration of test purchases of drugs in the respondent State, an issue similar to that in the present case (see Veselov and Others, cited above, §§ 126-28; Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, §§ 124-25, 24 April 2014; Lebedev and Others v. Russia, nos. 2500/07 and 4 others, §§ 12-16, 30 April 2015; and Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 20696/06 and 4 others, §§ 17-21, 27 November 2014).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

    MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    In a similar way, in agent provocateur cases the Court has stated that when "confronted with a plausible - and even arguable - allegation" of entrapment the courts "should have had regard to whether the results of the test purchases were admissible as evidence, in particular verifying that they were not tainted by incitement" (see Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 118, 24 April 2014).
  • 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, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

    FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    6228/09 and 4 others, § 75, 24 April 2014; and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 177, 25 June 2019).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15251/07

    OPRIS c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour rappelle avoir généralement examiné les griefs liés au défaut d'audition des agents investigateurs en la présence du requérant et ceux tirés de la provocation policière ensemble et sur le terrain de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Lagutin et autres c. Russie, nos 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 et 7451/09, §§ 98-101, 24 avril 2014, avec les références citées).
  • EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 27903/15

    ZUSTOVIC v. CROATIA

    6228/09 and 4 others, § 75, 24 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 35517/11

    VIRGIL DAN VASILE c. ROUMANIE

    L'examen de la procédure dans le cadre de laquelle il a été statué sur l'allégation de provocation policière est nécessaire afin de vérifier, dans le cas d'espèce, si les droits de la défense ont été adéquatement protégés, notamment le respect du principe du contradictoire et de l'égalité des armes (Edwards et Lewis c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 39647/98 et 40461/98, §§ 46-48, CEDH 2004-X, Constantin et Stoian, précité, §§ 56-57, et Lagutin et autres c. Russie, nos 6228/09 et 4 autres, §§ 94-95, 24 avril 2014).
  • EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 22486/05

    ULYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 20696/06

    YEREMTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 62082/10

    IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

    MIRENIC-HUZJAK AND JERKOVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 28347/08

    DMITRIEVA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 19185/05

    KOROMCHAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 46796/06

    MAMONTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 14313/07

    AKULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 51643/08

    YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 70841/10

    LELYUYKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 60757/12

    ANZINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 69446/17

    BOYACIKÖY PANAYIA EVANGELISTRA CHURCH AND SCHOOL FOUNDATION v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 2500/07

    SERGEY LEBEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 40442/07

    MANELYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 18471/03

    RYMANOV v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht