Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRIFONTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 12025/02
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  SEQUEIRA contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 67537/01

  SHANNON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  In several cases against Russia, the Court has found that applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for their judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48 - 50, 4 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  In several cases against Russia, the Court has found that applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for their judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48 - 50, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 05.02.2008 - 74420/01

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Tatprovokation; agent provocateur; V-Mann; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  MALININAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  In several cases against Russia, the Court has found that applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for their judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48 - 50, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  The Court points out that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140).