Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHALKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

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

• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00

  It would observe that the use at trial of material obtained without a proper legal basis or through unlawful means will not generally offend the standard of fairness imposed by Article 6 § 1 where proper procedural safeguards are in place and the nature and source of the material is not tainted, for example, by any oppression, coercion or entrapment which would render reliance on it unfair in the determination of a criminal charge (see also Schenk, cited above, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V, and P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00

  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 (see 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).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00

  As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 13 concerning his trial, 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).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97

  CONDRON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00

  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).

• EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 290/03

  R. A. u.a. gegen Deutschland

  Unterbrochen wird der Lauf der Sechs-Monats-Frist im Regelfall durch das erste Schreiben des betreffenden Beschwerdeführers, in dem er die Absicht, eine Individualbeschwerde zu erheben, anzeigt und einen Hinweis darauf gibt, welcher Art die erhobenen Rügen sind (siehe Chalkley ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 63831/00, 26. September 2002).