Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 15809/02, 25624/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,40797) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
O'HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 15809/02, 25624/02
- EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83
SALABIAKU c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 15809/02
In addition to the cases on the right to silence (e.g. Saunders v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, § 62), they referred to the limitations on access to court (e.g. Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, § 58), to case-law showing that in certain circumstances Contracting States were permitted to reverse the onus of proof of certain matters provided that this did not disturb the fair balance between the interests of the individual and the general interests of the community (e.g. Salabiaku v. France, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 28), to acceptable limitations on the rights of the defence in cases on equality of arms (Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-II) and the questioning of witnesses (S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-V) and also to the general principle that it is primarily for national law to regulate the admissibility of evidence, including incriminating evidence (e.g. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 38, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97
HEANEY ET McGUINNESS c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 15809/02
The applicants recalled that in Saunders (referred to above) and Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland (no. 34720/97, ECHR 2000-XII) the Court had held that the public interest could not be invoked to justify the use of answers compulsorily obtained. - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 15809/02
In addition to the cases on the right to silence (e.g. Saunders v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, § 62), they referred to the limitations on access to court (e.g. Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, § 58), to case-law showing that in certain circumstances Contracting States were permitted to reverse the onus of proof of certain matters provided that this did not disturb the fair balance between the interests of the individual and the general interests of the community (e.g. Salabiaku v. France, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 28), to acceptable limitations on the rights of the defence in cases on equality of arms (Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-II) and the questioning of witnesses (S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-V) and also to the general principle that it is primarily for national law to regulate the admissibility of evidence, including incriminating evidence (e.g. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 38, ECHR 2000-V).