Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CHADWICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95
ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00
Domestic law and practice at the material time on the prosecution's duty of disclosure of material to the defence and the circumstances in which such material can be withheld for reasons of public interest immunity are described in the Court's Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom judgment ([GC], no. 28901/95, ECHR 2000-II).The Court recalls that in its Rowe and Davis judgment ([GC], no. 28901/95, § 62 ECHR 2000-II) it held that while Article 6 § 1 requires in principle that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused, it may in some cases be necessary to withhold certain evidence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest.
- EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97
CONDRON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00
The interpretation given by the domestic courts to section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as well as the specimen direction applicable at the relevant time are described in the Court's Condron v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V) and Beckles v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 44652/98, 10 November 2002).The Court recalls that the right to silence is not an absolute right (see Condron v. United Kingdom (no. 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V, §§ 56-57).
- EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00
However, it is nonetheless the case that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 32-33, § 65; Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A 282-A, p. 11, § 28). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00
On that account, and as the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set out in paragraph 1 it is not necessary for the Court to examine the applicant's allegations separately from the standpoint of paragraph 3 (see, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, §§ 33-34). - EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 44652/98
BECKLES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00
The interpretation given by the domestic courts to section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as well as the specimen direction applicable at the relevant time are described in the Court's Condron v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V) and Beckles v. the United Kingdom judgment (no. 44652/98, 10 November 2002).