Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  The applicant made an application for an inquiry into PK's sources arguing that his trial would be unfair if he did not know these sources and the evidence against him (Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, ECHR 2000-II).

  However, that must be only to the minimum necessary and, even then, it must be counterbalanced by procedures followed by judicial authorities (Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, cited above; Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, ECHR 2000-II; and Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27052/95, 16 February 2000).

  The relevant principles are, in my opinion, those that can be found in Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 28901/95, ECHR 2000-II) and Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X).

• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  Reviewing this Court's case-law (inter alia, Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X), the SCC found that, while it was unthinkable that information that would threaten lives or State security would be disclosed, the admission of PK's evidence without any inquiry into its basis would unfairly balance the trial in favour of the prosecution.

  The case of Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X) was distinguishable in a number of respects.

  The relevant principles are, in my opinion, those that can be found in Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 28901/95, ECHR 2000-II) and Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X).

• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  It had to be determined whether the evidence of the Chief Superintendent was sole or decisive (Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011): the nature of the evidence in question as well as the significance of evidence other than the belief evidence, would be important factors.

  The majority further hold that they must be guided by the general principles articulated by the Court in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011) (paragraphs 78-79).

• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97

  CONDRON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  It is recalled that silence maintained in response to questions "clearly calling for an explanation" can be taken into account although that negative inference cannot be the "sole or main" basis for a conviction (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Condron v. the United Kingdom, no. 35718/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 29777/96

  FITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  These principles were also stated in two other judgments handed down on the same day: Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 27052/95, § 53, 16 February 2000), and Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 29777/96, § 46, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 67318/09

  TWOMEY, CAMERON AND GUTHRIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  67318/09 and 22226/12, 28 May 2013).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 31777/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  In recent cases concerning the non-disclosure of evidence the Court has continued to refer to those principles, not seeking to replace them with the Al-Khawaja and Tahery principles (see, for example, Leas v. Estonia, no. 59577/08, 6 March 2012; O'Farrell and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31777/05, 5 February 2013; and Twomey and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  The Court refers to the description of the matters leading to the adoption of the 1939 Act in its judgment in Lawless v. Ireland ((no. 3), 1 July 1961, §§ 1-7, Series A no. 3).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  The Court's task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 46099/06

  ELLIS AND SIMMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND MARTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  The admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (Ellis and Simms v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46099/06, § 40, 10 April 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 14212/10

  SCHOLER v. GERMANY

  Er erinnert in diesem Zusammenhang daran, dass es vor allem bei der Verfolgung der organisierten Kriminalität ein wesentliches Instrument darstellt, insbesondere Vertrauenspersonen zu gestatten, anonym Informationen zu liefern (siehe Donohoe./. Irland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 19165/08, Rdnr. 80, 12. Dezember 2013, mit weiteren Verweisen).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 35343/05

  [ENG]

  La Cour a maintes fois déclaré que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, il n'entre pas dans ses attributions de substituer sa propre appréciation des faits à celle des juridictions internes (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Elsholz c. Allemagne [GC], no 25735/94, § 66, CEDH 2000-VIII, et Donohoe c. Irlande, no 19165/08, § 73, 12 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 22105/18

  M.T. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Instead, it must confine itself, as far as possible, without losing sight of the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, for example, Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83 in fine, ECHR 2010; Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 69-70, 20 October 2011; and Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013).

• EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND

  In Donohoe v. Ireland, the Court considered that it was appropriate to be guided by the general principles articulated in relation to absent witnesses in a situation involving so-called "belief evidence", provided by a law-enforcement official and based on information received from unidentified sources (see Donahoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 78, 12 December 2013; see also Kelly v. Ireland (dec.), no. 41130/06, 14 December 2014).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 67496/10

  VAN WESENBEECK c. BELGIQUE et 1 autre affaire

  La Cour a déjà considéré que permettre à des agents infiltrés de la police de fournir des informations de manière anonyme est un outil essentiel dans la poursuite, en particulier, du crime organisé (voir, s'agissant d'indicateurs de la police, Donohoe c. Irlande, no 19165/08, § 80, 12 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  MOCKUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  The Government also noted that according to the experts the applicant had had a transitory psychotic disorder from 8 May 2003 until 26 June 2003 (see paragraph 18 above), and it was not for the Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts (the Government relied on Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  STRØBYE v. DENMARK and 1 other application

  Instead, it must confine itself, as far as possible, without losing sight of the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, for example, Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013; Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 69-70, 20 October 2011; Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83 in fine, ECHR 2010; and Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 45439/18

  AGGERHOLM v. DENMARK

  Instead, it must confine itself, as far as possible, without losing sight of the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, for example, Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013; Julin v. Estonia, cited above, § 126; Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 69-70, 20 October 2011; Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83 in fine, ECHR 2010; and Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008).