Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOLKOV v. UKRAINE

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VOLKOV v. UKRAINE

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 43571/12

  BERLIZEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  As to the applicant's complaint of entrapment, the nature of the applicant's defence did not exclude his case from the category of "entrapment cases" (see Yakhymovych v. Ukraine, no. 23476/15, § 48, 16 December 2021; contrast Lyubchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 34640/05, § 33, 31 May 2016, and Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 46, 8 July 2021).

  [2] At the relevant time, section 8 of the Act provided that the use of technical means of obtaining information during operational-search activities had to be authorised by a court decision (see Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 27, 8 July 2021, and Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, § 32, 14 October 2021).

• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  LYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  In any event, given that he admitted to having accepted money from the person who was the target of a criminal investigation which the applicant had conducted and having used it to repay a personal debt, the evidence collected as a result of the surveillance measures had a limited impact on the applicant's conviction (compare Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, 14 October 2021).

  [2] At the relevant time, section 8 of the Act provided that the use of technical means of obtaining information during operational-search activities had to be authorised by a court decision (see Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 27, 8 July 2021, and Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, § 32, 14 October 2021).

• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Abgrenzung der unzulässigen Tatprovokation von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  There were, accordingly, objective suspicions that the applicant had been involved in criminal activity and was predisposed to commit a criminal offence (see Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, § 38, 4 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15

  YAKHYMOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  As to the applicant's complaint of entrapment, the nature of the applicant's defence did not exclude his case from the category of "entrapment cases" (see Yakhymovych v. Ukraine, no. 23476/15, § 48, 16 December 2021; contrast Lyubchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 34640/05, § 33, 31 May 2016, and Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 46, 8 July 2021).
• EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  It was the applicant's own conduct and not the actions of the authorities that became the determinative factor in the commission of the offence (see Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, 26 March 2015, and Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, §§ 142-43, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12

  MATANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  It was the applicant's own conduct and not the actions of the authorities that became the determinative factor in the commission of the offence (see Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, 26 March 2015, and Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, §§ 142-43, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 34640/05

  LYUBCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  As to the applicant's complaint of entrapment, the nature of the applicant's defence did not exclude his case from the category of "entrapment cases" (see Yakhymovych v. Ukraine, no. 23476/15, § 48, 16 December 2021; contrast Lyubchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 34640/05, § 33, 31 May 2016, and Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 46, 8 July 2021).