Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2021,50531
EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15 (https://dejure.org/2021,50531)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.12.2021 - 23476/15 (https://dejure.org/2021,50531)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Dezember 2021 - 23476/15 (https://dejure.org/2021,50531)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,50531) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15
    However, the subsequent use of such sources by the trial court to found a conviction is a different matter and is acceptable only if adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse are in place, in particular a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising, implementing and supervising the investigative measures in question (ibid., § 53; see also Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII).
  • EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

    SEQUEIRA contre le PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15
    [7] (Dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI.
  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15
    The right to the fair administration of justice holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that it cannot be sacrificed for the sake of expedience (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25, Series A no. 11, and Ramanauskas, cited above, § 53).
  • EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

    LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15
    In the light of the above inconclusive elements, the Court cannot establish definitively, on the basis of the substantive test alone, whether the applicant was subjected to incitement contrary to Article 6 of the Convention and will proceed, therefore, with the procedural test of incitement (see Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X).
  • EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

    VOLKOV v. UKRAINE

    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 - 66407/17 (anhängig)

    SHABAN v. UKRAINE

    (f) Was the issue of incitement examined in an adversarial, thorough and comprehensive manner (see Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, § 73, 4 November 2010; Yakhymovych v. Ukraine, no. 23476/15, §§ 54-62, 16 December 2021)? Was all relevant information put openly before the trial court or tested in an adversarial manner (see Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008)? Regard being had to the manner in which the domestic courts dealt with the applicant's plea of incitement, the Government are specifically invited to comment on the applicant's assertion that the domestic courts only reviewed selected extracts from the covertly recorded conversations, rather than the contents of the full conversations, and that they did not have access to the original versions of these recordings.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht