Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALININAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (46)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.02.2008 - 74420/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  The relevant domestic law and practice, as well as the relevant international law, concerning police undercover activities and criminal conduct simulation models, have been summarised in the judgment of 5 February 2008 in the case of Ramanauskas v. Lithuania ([GC] no. 74420/01, §§ 31-37).
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  Moreover, the Court recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and for assessment by the domestic courts (cf. Windisch v. Austria, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 186, § 25).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 59895/00

  CALABRO v. ITALY and GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  Accordingly, the officer's behaviour did not amount to a provocation or incitement (cf. Calabro v. Italy and Germany (dec.), no. 59895/00, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  In sum, there had been a breach of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms (cf. Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 42104/02

  KEMAL KAHRAMAN AND ALI KAHRAMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  Furthermore, the Court is of the view that, where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see Öcalan v. Turkey, no. 46221/99 [GC], § 210, in fine, ECHR 2005 - IV; Kahraman v. Turkey, no. 42104/02, § 44, 26 April 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Abgrenzung der unzulässigen Tatprovokation von …

  The authorities must be able to demonstrate at any stage that they had good reasons for mounting the covert operation (see Ramanauskas, cited above, §§ 63 and 64, and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  [41] See Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 43, 1 July 2008.
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that initial steps have been taken to commit the acts constituting the offence for which the applicant is subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas, cited above, §§ 63 and 64; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).

  [14] See Chapter II, paragraph 2, of Recommendation Rec(2005)10 of the Committee of Ministers, and Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, § 63, ECHR 2008, and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008.

• EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 13109/04

  LALAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Government submitted information about M.'s request for reopening his case, which has been granted by the Supreme Court on 18 December 2008 after the judgment of the Court in the Malininas case (Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, 1 July 2008).

  It also found that M.'s plea of incitement was not adequately addressed by the domestic courts, in so far as relevant evidence was not disclosed to the defence or tested in an adversarial manner (Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, §§ 36-37, 1 July 2008).

  I regret that I cannot follow the approach adopted by the majority of the Chamber in the present case for the same reasons which I expressed in my dissenting opinion in the case of Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, 1 July 2008.

• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 74420/01

  AFFAIRES RAMANAUSKAS ET MALININAS CONTRE LA LITUANIE

  Applications No. 10071/04, judgment of 1 July 2008, final on 1 October 2008).

  10071/04.

• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 66152/14

  KUZMINA v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications

  Referring to the facts of the present cases, they claimed that the police officers had limited themselves to investigating the criminal activity in an essentially passive manner and had merely joined the ongoing offences, and that the commission of the crime had been predetermined mostly by the applicants' own behaviour (referring to Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, 1 July 2008; also Vanyan, cited above; and Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  On 2 December 2011 the Committee of Ministers concluded the execution of the judgments in the cases of in Ramanauskas, cited above, and Malininas v. Lithuania (no. 10071/04, 1 July 2008), having adopted Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)231, which described the measures taken by the Government of Lithuania to prevent future violations of Article 6 § 1 on account of the use by the police of undercover agents:.
• EGMR - 13109/04

  [ENG]

  Did the applicant receive a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, §§ 34-39, 1 July 2008)? In particular:.

  [1] see Malininas v. Lithuania (no. 10071/04, 1 July 2008).

• EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 47074/12

  GRBA v. CROATIA

  In the case of Malininas v. Lithuania (no. 10071/04, § 37, 1 July 2008), the Court examined a situation where the applicant had offered to supply drugs to an undercover agent who had approached him to ask where he could acquire such illegal drugs, after which the transaction had progressed and the applicant had been offered a significant sum of money to supply a large quantity of narcotics.
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 43490/07

  CIPRIAN VLADUÈš POP AND IOAN FLORIN POP v. ROMANIA

  Therefore, in cases where the main evidence originates from an undercover operation, the authorities must be able to demonstrate that they had good reasons for mounting that operation (see Bannikova, cited above, § 40, citing Ramanauskas, §§ 63 and 64, and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 36259/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  ALI v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 3023/22

  HELME v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15251/07

  OPRIS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 28823/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 6492/14

  RIMSCHI AND BALACHIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 31536/07

  TCHOKHONELIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07

  PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 18967/07

  DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 7600/09

  PATRASCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR - 54706/07

  KRIVDA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 6193/07

  MORDVINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 46227/07

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 22504/06

  ANTONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 10192/09 (anhängig)

  IVANTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 43089/07

  CHERKASOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 54449/07

  ROGOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 52651/07

  BEREZIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 5608/09 (anhängig)

  SALIKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 55519/09 (anhängig)

  VALEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 42616/08 (anhängig)

  SAZONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 48405/07

  CHALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 13746/09 (anhängig)

  FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 18561/09 (anhängig)

  MANYAKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 6226/07

  FRANTSUZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 66407/17 (anhängig)

  SHABAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02

  TRIFONTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2021 - 53166/10

  PAPYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 64020/09

  VOINEA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 27797/10

  ROTARU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR - 7716/09 (anhängig)

  DIMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 18589/07

  KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 48809/07

  MAKAROV v. RUSSIA