Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 41596/13   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,26449
EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 41596/13 (https://dejure.org/2018,26449)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.07.2018 - 41596/13 (https://dejure.org/2018,26449)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Juli 2018 - 41596/13 (https://dejure.org/2018,26449)
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

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 ... (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).
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