Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOSKO AND NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 05.02.2008 - 74420/01

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Tatprovokation; agent provocateur; V-Mann; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09

  It has stressed that the police are increasingly required to make use of undercover agents, informants and covert practices, particularly in tackling organised crime and corruption (Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 49 and 53, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09

  As regards Russia, in particular, the Court has found that the domestic courts have the jurisdiction to examine such pleas, in particular under the procedure for the exclusion of evidence (see Veselov, cited above, § 94; Ramanauskas, cited above, §§ 70 and 71; and Khudobin, no. 59696/00, § 133, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Malininas, cited above, § 43; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 54339/09

  ZININ v. RUSSIA

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

  Such a failure tends to undermine the legitimacy of such operations "from the outset" (see Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, no. 11789/10, § 64, 30 October 2014) and even to encourage their arbitrary use as a routine law enforcement tool.

• EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA

  5753/09 and 11789/10, 30 October 2014).
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 31536/07

  TCHOKHONELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  While the Court has consistently accepted the use of undercover agents as a legitimate investigative technique for combating serious crimes, this technique still requires that clear, adequate and sufficient procedural safeguards set permissible police conduct aside from entrapment, as the public interest cannot justify the use of evidence obtained as a result of police entrapment (see Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, and Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos. 5753/09 and 11789/10, § 50, 30 October 2014).
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 62082/10

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The present case is identical to other Russian cases on entrapment, in which the Court found in the past violations on account of deficiencies in procedure for authorising undercover operations in the context of investigating offences concerning bribes or illegal distribution of drugs (see Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos. 5753/09 and 11789/10, 30 October 2014; Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, 24 April 2014; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 18471/03

  RYMANOV v. RUSSIA

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