Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06, 28655/09, 21665/10, 25350/10, 45639/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.11.2013 - 3343/06, 28655/09, 21665/10, 25350/10, 45639/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,53734)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. November 2013 - 3343/06, 28655/09, 21665/10, 25350/10, 45639/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,53734)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,53734) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99
VANYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06
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), Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Abgrenzung der unzulässigen Tatprovokation von …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06
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), Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 05.02.2008 - 74420/01
Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Tatprovokation; agent provocateur; V-Mann; …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06
Any arguable plea of incitement places the courts under an obligation to examine it and make conclusive findings on the issue of entrapment, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate that there was no incitement (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2008). - EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06
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), Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10
VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06
23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, § 126-128, 2 October 2012).