Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 13109/04

The Court has established that its function under Article 6 § 1 is to review the quality of the domestic courts' assessment of the alleged entrapment and to ensure that they adequately secured the accused's rights of defence, in particular the right to adversarial proceedings and to equality of arms (Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2004-X).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 13109/04

Among such factors is the demonstrated familiarity of a person with the drug market; such as knowledge of prices of different drugs, as well as an ability to obtain drugs at short notice (See Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, § 42, 4 November 2010, and Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 13109/04

The Court is of the view that, where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, as provided for by Article 456 of the Lithuanian Code of Criminal Procedure, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see Öcalan v. Turkey, no. 46221/99 [GC], § 210, in fine, ECHR 2005 - IV; Kahraman v. Turkey, no. 42104/02, § 44, 26 April 2007; Malininas cited above, § 43).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 13109/04

Among such factors is the demonstrated familiarity of a person with the drug market; such as knowledge of prices of different drugs, as well as an ability to obtain drugs at short notice (See Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, § 42, 4 November 2010, and Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 13109/04

Moreover, the Court recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and for assessment by the domestic courts (Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 25, Series A no. 186).