Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LATIMER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 36408/97

  AVERILL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 12141/04

  Nor is it the case that any inferences were drawn from any silence by the applicant during this detention period as was the case in John Murray (cited above; see also Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 12141/04

  It is not, as a general rule, for the Court to substitute its own assessment of the evidence made by a domestic court, save in circumstances where the domestic court's assessment was arbitrary or capricious, or the system of guarantees or safeguards which applied in the assessment of the reliability of confession evidence was manifestly inadequate (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 12141/04

  Thus, Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 36; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, ECHR 2000-VI, § 41).
• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 28135/95

  MAGEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 12141/04

  Thus, Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 36; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, ECHR 2000-VI, § 41).

• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12622/04

  IVAKHNENKO v. RUSSIA

  In the present case there is no evidence that the applicant, who had the statutory right to remain silent, ever requested to see counsel (see Latimer v. the United Kingdom, dec., no 12141/04, 31 May 2005).