Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance Legal assistance of his own choosing) ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Abgrenzung der unzulässigen Tatprovokation von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  The Court reiterates that in several cases against Russia it has found that the applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in covert operations, particularly in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for such operations to be subject to judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 126-28, 2 October 2012; Lagutin and Others, cited above, § 134, 24 April 2014; and Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  The Court reiterates that in several cases against Russia it has found that the applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in covert operations, particularly in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for such operations to be subject to judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 126-28, 2 October 2012; Lagutin and Others, cited above, § 134, 24 April 2014; and Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  It reiterates that an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).

 
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  The Court reiterates that in several cases against Russia it has found that the applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in covert operations, particularly in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for such operations to be subject to judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 126-28, 2 October 2012; Lagutin and Others, cited above, § 134, 24 April 2014; and Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  The Court reiterates that in several cases against Russia it has found that the applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in covert operations, particularly in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for such operations to be subject to judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 126-28, 2 October 2012; Lagutin and Others, cited above, § 134, 24 April 2014; and Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 32432/96

  TALAT TUNÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  The Court considered that a person may waive, of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial as neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from doing so (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007).
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 43095/05

  ALEKSANDR DEMENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  Such a waiver must be established unequivocally, however, and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-...; Aleksandr Dementyev v. Russia, no. 43095/05, §§ 41, 49-50, 28 November 2013).
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09

  NOSKO AND NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  5753/09 and 11789/10, 30 October 2014).

• EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  VOLKOV v. UKRAINE

  It was the applicant's own conduct and not the actions of the authorities that became the determinative factor in the commission of the offence (see Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, 26 March 2015, and Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, §§ 142-43, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 24453/17

  YELISTRATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  7614/09 and 30863/10, §§ 56-61, 26 March 2015, as regards the failure to provide the applicants with legal aid lawyers; and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 35517/11

  VIRGIL DAN VASILE c. ROUMANIE

  De l'avis de la Cour, ces éléments peuvent être considérés comme indicatifs d'une activité criminelle préexistante que les autorités ont enquêtée de manière passive (voir, mutatis mutandis, Eurofinacom c. France, (déc.), no 58753/00, CEDH 2004/VII, et Volkov et Adamskiy c. Russie, nos 7614/09 et 30863/10, §§ 37-46, 26 mars 2015) ou de l'intention de déployer une telle activité (voir, mutatis mutandis, Shannon, décision précitée).
• EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 30155/05

  VERESHCHAGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  7618/09 and 30863/10, §§ 21-26, 26 March 2015, concerning the lawyers" participation in appeal proceedings in a criminal case; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 123-127, 12 June 2008, related to the impossibility to have meetings with a family member during the pre-trial detention; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessively lengthy and unreasonable detention on remand; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.