Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 1303/02

The applicant submitted that the use of the taped evidence obtained in breach of his Article 8 and 13 rights deprived him of a fair trial, pointing to the fact that it included conversations between husband and wife and times when they were clearly under the influence of drugs, rendering their use unfair (citing Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, ECHR 2002-VIII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 1303/02

While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, §§ 45 and 46, and, for a more recent example in a different context, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, § 34).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 1303/02

The Court has in a number of similar cases observed that the use at trial of material obtained without a proper legal basis or through unlawful means will not generally offend the standard of fairness imposed by Article 6 § 1 where such proper procedural safeguards are in place and the nature and source of the material is not tainted, for example, by any oppression, coercion or entrapment which would render reliance on it unfair in the determination of a criminal charge (see also Schenk and Khan, cited above, and P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX; mutatis mutandis, Allan v. the United Kingdom, cited above).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 1303/02

He complains, finally, under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy for the breaches of his rights, as outlined in the Khan v. the United Kingdom case (no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V).