Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  Turning to questions of evidence in criminal proceedings, the Court recalls at the outset that according to its established case-law, Article 6 does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017; and Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, § 57, 31 March 2016).

  "the Court recalls at the outset that according to its established case-law, Article 6 does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017; and Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, § 57, 31 March 2016).

• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  The Court notes, however, that there is a distinction between the admissibility of evidence, that is, the question of which elements of proof may be submitted to the competent court for its consideration, and the rights of defence in respect of evidence which in fact has been submitted before the court (see, for instance, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 68, Series A no. 146; Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238; and C.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27741/95, Commission decision of 17 January 1997).

  The Court has, however, held that Article 6 § 3(d) extends to statements which were in fact made before the trial court and taken into account by it (ibid. § 40; see Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 35, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 44, Series A no. 238).

• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  The Supreme Court referred in particular to cases Unterpertinger v. Austria, 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A; and Rachdad v. France, no. 71846/01, 13 November 2003.

  The Court has, however, held that Article 6 § 3(d) extends to statements which were in fact made before the trial court and taken into account by it (ibid. § 40; see Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, § 35, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 44, Series A no. 238).

 
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 22696/16

  J.R. ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  Evidence from indirect sources, including, inter alia, witnesses" testimonies and other evidence gathered by non-governmental organisations, is often relied upon in the Court's proceedings (see, among many examples, NA. v. The United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, 17 July 2008; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, 13 December 2016; and J.R. and Others v. Greece, no. 22696/16, 25 January 2018).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06

  KELLY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  In Donohoe v. Ireland, the Court considered that it was appropriate to be guided by the general principles articulated in relation to absent witnesses in a situation involving so-called "belief evidence", provided by a law-enforcement official and based on information received from unidentified sources (see Donahoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 78, 12 December 2013; see also Kelly v. Ireland (dec.), no. 41130/06, 14 December 2014).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  The Court notes, however, that there is a distinction between the admissibility of evidence, that is, the question of which elements of proof may be submitted to the competent court for its consideration, and the rights of defence in respect of evidence which in fact has been submitted before the court (see, for instance, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 68, Series A no. 146; Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238; and C.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27741/95, Commission decision of 17 January 1997).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  Cases relating to the enforcement of competition and similar domains of law have often been examined under the criminal head of Article 6 (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 46-47, Series A no. 35; Société Stenuit v. France, no. 11598/85, §§ 59-67, Commission's report of 30 May 1991; Lilly France S.A. v. France (dec.), no. 53892/00, 3 December 2002; A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, no. 43509/08, 27 September 2011; Dubus S.A. v. France, no. 5242/04, §§ 37-38, 11 June 2009; and Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12

  CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  They are, however, not aims in themselves: their intrinsic aim is always to contribute to ensuring the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole (see, inter alia, Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, §§ 119-120, 4 April 2018; Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 251).
• EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 59506/00

  GEORGIOS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  Also, the provision has been applied in a situation where essential pieces of evidence, in the form of original documents and extracts from computer log files, were not adequately adduced and discussed at the trial in the applicant's presence (see Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece, no. 59506/00, § 7, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  Evidence from indirect sources, including, inter alia, witnesses" testimonies and other evidence gathered by non-governmental organisations, is often relied upon in the Court's proceedings (see, among many examples, NA. v. The United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, 17 July 2008; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, 13 December 2016; and J.R. and Others v. Greece, no. 22696/16, 25 January 2018).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EuG, 08.07.2004 - T-67/00

  JFE Engineering / Kommission - Kartelle - Markt für nahtlose Stahlrohre - EFTA - …
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
• EuG, 08.07.2008 - T-53/03

  BPB / Kommission - Wettbewerb - Kartelle - Gipsplattenmarkt - Entscheidung, mit …
• EuGH, 08.07.1999 - C-235/92

  Montecatini / Kommission
• EuGH, 07.01.2004 - C-204/00

  DER GERICHTSHOF BESTÄTIGT IM WESENTLICHEN DAS URTEIL DES GERICHTS ERSTER INSTANZ …

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  There is also a distinction between the latter (that is to say, whether the rights of defence have been properly ensured in respect of the evidence taken) and the subsequent assessment of that evidence by the court once the proceedings have been concluded (see SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 74, 14 February 2019, and the references therein, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 125, 27 October 2020).
• EGMR, 25.10.2022 - 68725/16

  XENOFONTOS AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Article 6 does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, as this is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 73, 14 February 2019)[1].
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  ALEXANDRU-RADU LUCA v. ROMANIA

  They require a "fair balance" between the parties: each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see, among other authorities, Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-VIII, and SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 66, 14 February 2019).
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 40829/12

  MARTYNENKO v. UKRAINE

  It will be infringed where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence (see, for example, SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 107, 14 February 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 1269/13

  EUROPEAN AIR TRANSPORT LEIPZIG GMBH c. BELGIQUE

  Il requiert cependant que la décision d'une autorité ne remplissant pas elle-même les conditions de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention subisse le contrôle ultérieur d'un organe judiciaire de pleine juridiction (Segame SA précité, § 55, Grande Stevens et autres précité, § 139, A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. précité, § 59, SA-Capital Oy c. Finlande, no 5556/10, § 72, 14 février 2019).