Rechtsprechung
EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 33995/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,34234) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAMBRO AND FIORAVANTI v. ITALY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86
Windisch ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 33995/96
The Commission also recalls that the question of the admissibility of evidence and of its probative value is primarily governed by the rules of domestic law, and as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, as well as the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce (see Eur. Court HR, Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 34; Windisch v. Austria judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 186, p. 120, para. 25). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
F.C.B. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 33995/96
1 of the same article (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, F.C.B. v. Italy judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 20, para. 29). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 33995/96
The Commission also recalls that the question of the admissibility of evidence and of its probative value is primarily governed by the rules of domestic law, and as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, as well as the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce (see Eur. Court HR, Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 34; Windisch v. Austria judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 186, p. 120, para. 25). - EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 33995/96
3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses; it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (see, among other, Eur. Court HR, Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 20, para. 43; No. 17265/90, Dec. 21.10.93, D.R. 75, p. 76).