Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRESTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  The applicants argue that the law and practice of interception are not in compliance with the Malone or Klass judgments (Eur. Court HR, Klass and others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28 and Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment loc. cit.), referring to the absence of the substantive involvement in the process of an independent judicial authority.
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence "all material evidence for or against the accused" (Eur. Court HR, Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247, p. 35, para. 36) and that the principle of equality of arms, requiring a fair balance between the prosecution and the defence, also constitutes a feature of the wider concept of a fair trial (Eur. Court HR, Ekbatani v. Sweden judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A. no. 134, p. 14, para. 30 and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, para. 33).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  It only applies if the individual can be said to have an "arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (Eur. Court HR, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  On 10 April 1986 the Interception of Communications Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act") came into force in the United Kingdom pursuant to the judgment of the Court in the Malone case (Eur. Court HR, Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  However, the role of the Convention organs is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (Eur. Court HR, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33, Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, pp. 29-30, paras. 45-49 and Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  However, the role of the Convention organs is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (Eur. Court HR, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33, Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, pp. 29-30, paras. 45-49 and Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).
• EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88

  T. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which provides for a general right to a fair trial of which the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6) are specific aspects (Eur. Court HR, T v. Italy judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, para. 25).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 24193/94

  However, the role of the Convention organs is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (Eur. Court HR, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33, Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, pp. 29-30, paras. 45-49 and Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).

• EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 27052/95

  JASPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In November 1993 the House of Lords had decided R. v. Preston which concerned the right of the defence to have access to material obtained by a telephone tap authorised under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 ["the 1985 Act"] (see also No. 24193/94, Dec. 2.7.97).
• EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 29777/96

  FITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In November 1993 the House of Lords had decided R. v. Preston which concerned the right of the defence to have access to material obtained by a telephone tap authorised under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 ["the 1985 Act"] (see also No. 24193/94, Dec. 2.7.97).