Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 7215/10   

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PRADE v. GERMANY

    Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PRADE v. GERMANY - [Deutsche Übersetzung]

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PRADE v. GERMANY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Besprechungen u.ä. (2)

  • HRR Strafrecht (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

    Zum Begriff des fairen Verfahrens und der Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung nach Art. 6 I, Art. 8 I, II EMRK bei unrechtmäßiger Durchsuchung (RA Dr. Marcin Byczyk; HRRS 2016, 509-513)

  • examensrelevant.de (Fallmäßige Aufbereitung - für Studienzwecke)

    Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK
    EMRK: Verwertung von durch rechtswidrige Durchsuchung erlangten Beweisen

Sonstiges

Hinweis zu den Links:
Zu Einträgen, die orange verlinkt sind, liegen derzeit keine weiteren Informationen vor. Sie können diese Links aber nutzen, um die Einträge beispielsweise in Ihre Merkliste aufzunehmen.

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2017, 2811



Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)  

  • EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 22767/08  

    DRAGOS IOAN RUSU v. ROMANIA

    It notes that the applicant availed himself of numerous opportunities to question the validity of the seized correspondence and the courts addressed his objections (see paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 above; see also Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, § 38, 3 March 2016 and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Nitulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, §§ 46 and 53-57, 22 September 2015).

    [14] This does not seem to be the case, taking into account further developments in Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, 3 March 2016, as outlined in this separate opinion below.

  • EGMR - 49801/09 (anhängig)  

    ESMEZ v. TURKEY

    The application concerns the alleged unlawful search at the applicant's home and the use by the trial court of evidence obtained thereby to secure his conviction (see, mutatis mutandis, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, 3 March 2016).

    a) Did the national courts use every reasonable opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the search of the applicant's house and check the reliability as well as the accuracy of the evidence obtained thereby (see, mutatis mutandis, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, 3 March 2016)? Were there procedural safeguards in relation to the applicant's allegation concerning the way in which the search was carried out (see, mutatis mutandis, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009; Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, 25 February 2010; Horvatic v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, 17 October 2013; and, Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, 10 April 2014)?.

  • EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 34015/07  

    ZHERDEV v. UKRAINE

    In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see, for example, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, §§ 33 and 34, 3 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 38059/13  

    SVETINA v. SLOVENIA

    This involves an examination of the "unlawfulness" in question and, where a violation of another Convention right is concerned, the nature of the violation found (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 89, 10 March 2009, and Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, § 33, 3 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13  

    BASIC v. CROATIA

    Accordingly, the admission into evidence of information obtained in breach of Article 8, as occurred in the present case, will not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 in so far as its use in the proceedings was commensurate with the appropriate procedural safeguards required by the Court's case-law (see, for instance, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 94-105, 10 March 2009; see also Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 25-28, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-IX; Nitulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, §§ 43-57, 22 September 2015; and, in the context of an unlawful search, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, §§ 36-43, 3 March 2016).
  • EGMR - 62392/11 (anhängig)  

    TÜMER v. TURKEY

    (a) Did the national courts use every reasonable opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the search of the applicant's house and check the reliability as well as the accuracy of the evidence obtained thereby (see, mutatis mutandis, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, 3 March 2016)? Were there procedural safeguards in relation to the applicant's allegation concerning the way in which the search was carried out (see, mutatis mutandis, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009; Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, 25 February 2010; Horvatic v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, 17 October 2013 and; Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, 10 April 2014)?.
  • EGMR - 30252/11 (anhängig)  

    DÜZGÜN v. TURKEY and 1 other applications

    (a) Did the national courts examine the lawfulness of the search of the premises of the periodical "Ekmek ve Adalet" and check the reliability as well as the accuracy of the evidence obtained thereby (see, mutatis mutandis, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, 3 March 2016)? Were there procedural safeguards in relation to the applicants" allegation concerning the way in which the search was carried out (see, mutatis mutandis, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009; Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, 25 February 2010; Horvatic v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, 17 October 2013; and, Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, 10 April 2014)?.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?

Ablegen in

Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 Alle auswählen Alle auswählen


 


Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht