Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 41596/13 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,26449) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BREIJER v. THE NETHERLANDS
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BREIJER v. THE NETHERLANDS
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10
SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 41596/13
It is also notable in this context that the admissibility of evidence is a matter for regulation by national law and the national courts and that the Court's only concern is to examine whether the proceedings have been conducted fairly (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 162, and the references therein; see also Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, § 57, 31 March 2016).
- EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 56440/15
SNIJDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
To the contrary, based on the material before it the Court finds that the decision of the Regional Court sitting in chambers to grant X the status of threatened witness on account of his or her fear of reprisals was based on objective grounds and supported by evidence and thus cannot be considered arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see also Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 71, Reports 1996 II; Kok v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43149/98, ECHR 2000-VI; Pesukic v. Switzerland, cited above, § 46; and Breijer v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 41596/13, § 33, 3 July 2018). - EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18
TADIC v. CROATIA
Starting with the applicant's specific argument regarding the weight given to the President of the Supreme Court's witness testimony (see paragraph 49 above), the Court notes that his statements were not the "sole" evidence used to ground the applicant's conviction; nor were they "decisive" in the sense that they were likely to be decisive for the outcome of the case (compare Breijer v. the Netherlands (dec.), 41596/13, § 34, 3 July 2018; and contrast Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), no. 34896/97, § 88, 5 December 2002).