Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 50015/99

Paying due regard to the quality of the evidence and the opportunity given to the defence to challenge the evidence, the use at trial of material obtained without a proper legal basis or lawful authority has been found by the Court on a number of occasions not to offend the standard of fairness imposed by Article 6 § 1 (Schenk v. Switzerland, Khan v. the United Kingdom (both cited above), and P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 50015/99

While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, §§ 45 and 46, and, for a more recent example in a different context, the Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 34).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 50015/99

Having regard to its decision on Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the case under Article 13 since its requirements are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1 (see notably, the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 32, § 88).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 50015/99

While it is true that "safety" and fairness are not identical in their requirements (Condron v. the United Kingdom, no. 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V, § 65), the Court would agree with the dicta of the domestic courts which express the view that there is a certain overlap in practice (see Relevant and Domestic Law and Practice, and also C.G. v. the United Kingdom, no. 43373/98, judgment of 19 December 2001, § 36).