Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALENTINO ACATRINEI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Respect for private life) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Article 6-3-d - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Valentino Acatrinei v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04
• EGMR, 05.07.2017 - 18540/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  On 11 September 2000 the Romanian Intelligence Service ("the RIS") informed the Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice ("the prosecutor") that the lawyer L.P. (the applicant in case no. 25333/03) had given bribes to several judges, including the applicant, in order to obtain decisions favourable to her clients.

  The Court observed that the court of last resort had addressed the issue of reclassification and had concluded that it had concerned only the sentence and not the legal classification of the facts themselves and that the defendants had had the opportunity to contest the facts attributed to them (see Peter v. Romania (dec.), no. 25333/03, § 80, 15 September 2009 and paragraph 7 above).

• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  The Court further reiterates that it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 88, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  The Court has already found in particular circumstances of a given case, that the fact that the domestic courts used as sole evidence transcripts of unlawfully obtained telephone conversations, did not conflict with the requirements of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 76, ECHR 2001-IX; and Dumitru Popescu, cited above, § 106).

• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  The Court has already found in particular circumstances of a given case, that the fact that the domestic courts used as sole evidence transcripts of unlawfully obtained telephone conversations, did not conflict with the requirements of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 76, ECHR 2001-IX; and Dumitru Popescu, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 31, Reports 1997-VIII and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  The Court reiterates that the circumstances of the present case differ essentially from those examined in Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000-VIII), where the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 in so far as the applicant was convicted for the first time by the court of last resort, without being heard by that court about the new classification given to the crimes.
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  Relying on Klass and Others v. Germany (6 September 1978, § 49, Series A no. 28), they stated that the Court had accepted that national security concerns could justify, in exceptional circumstances, measures of secret surveillance.
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 35623/05

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens (Datenschutz; GPS-Überwachung; Observation; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 8 applies irrespective of whether the surveillance was carried out on a device belonging to the applicant or to a third party (see, notably, Lambert v. France, 24 August 1998, §§ 20-21, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; and Uzun v. Germany, no. 35623/05, § 49, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  At the outset, the Court points out that the guarantees enshrined in paragraph 3 of Article 6 represent specific applications of the general principle stated in paragraph 1 of that Article and for this reason it will examine them together (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 66, Reports 1996-II; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 32, Series A no. 37).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  At the outset, the Court points out that the guarantees enshrined in paragraph 3 of Article 6 represent specific applications of the general principle stated in paragraph 1 of that Article and for this reason it will examine them together (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 66, Reports 1996-II; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 32, Series A no. 37).
• KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 25/09
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 25337/94

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens / der Korrespondenz (Telefonüberwachung; …
• EGMR, 05.02.2014 - 42250/02

  CALMANOVICI AND 7 OTHER CASES AGAINST ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 71525/01

  DUMITRU POPESCU CONTRE LA ROUMANIE (N° 2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen