Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Lagutin and Others v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (57)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR - 19678/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  (Applications nos. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09).

  The application of Mr Semenov (no. 19678/07).

  19678/07.

• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  The general principles relating to the guarantees of a fair trial in the context of undercover investigative techniques used to combat drug trafficking and corruption are set out in the Court's extensive case-law summarised in the case of Bannikova v. Russia (no. 18757/06, §§ 33-65, 4 November 2010) and Veselov and Others (cited above, §§ 88-94).

  [2] See paragraphs 93 and 115 of the judgment and the previous cases of Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-47, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII; Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 49-50, 4 November 2010; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 106 and 126-127, 2 October 2012.

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  SEQUEIRA contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  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).

  [22] Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Vanyan, cited above, § 49; and Khudobin, cited above, § 134.

• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  MALININAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  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, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  Moreover, in cases where the lack of file disclosure or the conflicting nature of the parties" interpretation of events precludes the Court from establishing with a sufficient degree of certainty whether the applicant was subjected to police incitement, the procedural aspect becomes decisive (see Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X; V. v. Finland, no. 40412/98, § 72, 24 April 2007; and Constantin and Stoian v. Romania, nos.

  39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§ 205-224, ECHR 2009; and Bannikova, cited above, §§ 62-65.

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  A comparative analysis of the national systems of authorisation of undercover operations in the Council of Europe member States is summarised in Veselov and Others v. Russia (nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 50-63, 2 October 2012).

  [2] See paragraphs 93 and 115 of the judgment and the previous cases of Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-47, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII; Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 49-50, 4 November 2010; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 106 and 126-127, 2 October 2012.

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  This situation in principle calls for the adoption of general measures by the respondent State, which remains, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V).
• VGH der UEK, 29.03.2005 - 29/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  29/01/1986.
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 67537/01

  SHANNON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  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).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  There will not be a fair trial, however, unless any difficulties caused to the defendant by a limitation on his rights are sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see, for example, Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 70, Reports 1996-II; Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 58, Reports 1997-III; Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27052/95, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2000-II; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-V; Botmeh and Alami v. the United Kingdom, no. 15187/03, § 37, 7 June 2007; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§ 205 et seq., ECHR 2009-...; and Leas v. Estonia, no. 59577/08, §§ 76 et seq., 6 March 2012).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10

  BRUNNER v. TURKEY
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 06.11.2012 - 13/11
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 23782/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

  V. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 28823/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 27968/03

  KUZMICKAJA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 15187/03

  BOTMEH AND ALAMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 54648/09

  Unzulässige Tatprovokation (Anstiftung; verbleibende Opferstellung im Sinne der …

  Damit ein Verfahren im Sinne von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention fair ist, müssen alle als Ergebnis polizeilicher Provokation gewonnenen Beweismittel ausgeschlossen werden oder aber ein Verfahren mit vergleichbaren Konsequenzen muss greifen (siehe Lagutin u. a../. Russland, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 und 7451/09, Rdnr. 117, 24.
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

  Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …

  Damit ein Verfahren im Sinne von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention fair ist, müssen sämtliche infolge einer polizeilichen Anstiftung erlangten Beweismittel von der Verwertung ausgeschlossen werden, oder es muss ein Verfahren mit vergleichbaren Konsequenzen greifen (siehe Lagutin und andere./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 6228/09 und vier weitere, Rdnr. 117, 24. April 2014 mit weiteren Verweisen, und F., a.a.O., Rdnr. 64).
• BGH, 19.05.2015 - 1 StR 128/15

  Rechtstaatswidrige Tatprovokation (Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires …

  Damit in solchen Fällen das Strafverfahren im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK fair ist, müssten alle als Ergebnis polizeilicher Provokation gewonnenen Beweismittel ausgeschlossen werden oder aber ein Verfahren mit vergleichbaren Konsequenzen ("procedure with similar consequences") müsse greifen (siehe nur EGMR, Urteile vom 24. April 2014 - 6228/09 u.a. "Lagutin e.a. vs. Russia" Rn. 117 mwN;… vom 23. Oktober 2014 - 54648/09 "Furcht gegen Deutschland" Rn. 64).

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37138/14

  Ungarns Anti-Terror-Gesetz ist menschenrechtswidrig

  6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, 24 April 2014.
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08

  Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …

  One example of such pre-"charge" facts is entrapment by the police: if persons have been entrapped by the police into carrying out acts that they would not otherwise carried out, any criminal proceedings brought against them on the basis of those acts will be unfair (see, among many case-law authorities, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, §§ 34-36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 33-65, 4 November 2010; and Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, §§ 89-101, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 66152/14

  KUZMINA v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications

  It addresses the question whether the structural problem identified in Veselov and Others v. Russia (nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 88-94 and 126-27, 2 October 2012) and reiterated in Lagutin and Others v. Russia (nos. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, § 134, 24 April 2014) persists.

  6228/09 and 4 others, §§ 62-66, 24 April 2014.

  The applicants contended that their cases revealed the presence of the same underlying defect as that identified by the Court in the cases of Veselov and Others (nos. 23200/10 and 2 others, §§ 126-27, 2 October 2012), and Lagutin and Others v. Russia (nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, §§ 93, 115 and 134, 24 April 2014), in particular the absence of a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising test purchases and operational experiments.

• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 3023/22

  HELME v. ESTONIA

  Rn. 72 The Court reiterates that in cases where the main evidence originates from a covert operation, the authorities must be able to demonstrate that they had good reasons for mounting the covert operation (see Bannikova, cited above, § 40, and Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 91, 24 April 2014).

  It should be noted that, in this respect, the present judgment departs from established case-law, which requires the existence of "objective suspicions that the applicant had been involved in criminal activity or was predisposed to commit a criminal offence" (see Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, 4 November 2010, and Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, 24 April 2014).

• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

  MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  In a similar way, in agent provocateur cases the Court has stated that when "confronted with a plausible - and even arguable - allegation" of entrapment the courts "should have had regard to whether the results of the test purchases were admissible as evidence, in particular verifying that they were not tainted by incitement" (see Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 118, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 47074/12

  GRBA v. CROATIA

  Given that the applicant maintained throughout the proceedings that the purchase of further quantities of counterfeit euros had been a result of incitement, it was incumbent on the domestic authorities, irrespective of an explicit request by the applicant, to elucidated circumstances of the case (see, for example, Ramanauskas, cited above, § 71, and Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 121, 24 April 2014) including by way of questioning the undercover agents' superior officer, who could have dispelled any doubts as to the grounds and reasons for the multiple application of the simulated purchase model.
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 55146/14

  RAMANAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  The trial court took into account the applicant's statements and examined them against the testimony of the alleged instigators and of the officers of the Special Investigation Service, but also against those of the applicant's co-accused (who pleaded guilty and whom the applicant for some reason had not accused of incitement), as well as against the evidence obtained after the authorisation of the actions simulating criminal conduct (see paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment); it also had regard to the applicant's entrapment plea, heard witnesses, and analysed voice and video-recordings and transcripts of the conversations between the applicant and the alleged instigators (compare Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 101, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 43490/07

  CIPRIAN VLADUÈš POP AND IOAN FLORIN POP v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 55546/09

  SAMPECH c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 27903/15

  ZUSTOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2025 - 21766/22

  CAVCA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 29627/10

  KOVAL v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  MIRENIC-HUZJAK AND JERKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 7600/09

  PATRASCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 22486/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 2500/07

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 20696/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 40018/16

  UGURYAN v. RUSSIA and 10 other applications
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 12233/10

  LIVADNIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 66215/12

  KUMITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 45102/04

  BILGINOGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 35517/11

  VIRGIL DAN VASILE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 14313/07

  AKULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 70841/10

  LELYUYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2026 - 20488/21

  GAREYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 26314/20

  KARALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 26190/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 54339/09

  ZININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 22625/07

  KLIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 19185/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 46796/06

  MAMONTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15251/07

  OPRIS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.07.2024 - 57301/18

  ZEMTSOV v. and 1 other application
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 31751/14

  SIROTA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2020 - 46440/16

  MEDVEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 7779/17

  BOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 69446/17

  BOYACiKOY PANAYIA EVANGELISTRA KILISESI VE MEKTEBI VAKFi v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 33128/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 65311/09

  MORARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR - 20977/18 (anhängig)

  MIROSHNIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 62082/10

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 60757/12

  ANZINA v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 39703/07

  DANILIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 40442/07

  MANELYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 28634/11

  KHASANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 28347/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 51643/08

  YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2018 - 74986/10

  PARAMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 50468/16

  MILLS v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 18471/03

  RYMANOV v. RUSSIA