Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BASIC v. CROATIA

  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) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BASIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  Accordingly, the admission into evidence of information obtained in breach of Article 8, as occurred in the present case, will not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 in so far as its use in the proceedings was commensurate with the appropriate procedural safeguards required by the Court's case-law (see, for instance, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 94-105, 10 March 2009; see also Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 25-28, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-IX; Nitulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, §§ 43-57, 22 September 2015; and, in the context of an unlawful search, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, §§ 36-43, 3 March 2016).
• EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 7215/10

  Zum Begriff des fairen Verfahrens und der Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung nach Art. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  Accordingly, the admission into evidence of information obtained in breach of Article 8, as occurred in the present case, will not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 in so far as its use in the proceedings was commensurate with the appropriate procedural safeguards required by the Court's case-law (see, for instance, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 94-105, 10 March 2009; see also Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 25-28, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-IX; Nitulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, §§ 43-57, 22 September 2015; and, in the context of an unlawful search, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, §§ 36-43, 3 March 2016).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  The fact that the applicant was unsuccessful at each step does not alter the fact that he had an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence and oppose its use (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 47, Series A no. 140, and Khan, cited above, § 38).

 
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  Accordingly, the admission into evidence of information obtained in breach of Article 8, as occurred in the present case, will not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 in so far as its use in the proceedings was commensurate with the appropriate procedural safeguards required by the Court's case-law (see, for instance, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 94-105, 10 March 2009; see also Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 25-28, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-IX; Nitulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, §§ 43-57, 22 September 2015; and, in the context of an unlawful search, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, §§ 36-43, 3 March 2016).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  It did not, however, provide adequate reasoning as to the particular circumstances of the case and in particular reasons why the investigation could not be conducted by other, less intrusive, means (see paragraph 7 above; see also Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 260, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  Accordingly, the admission into evidence of information obtained in breach of Article 8, as occurred in the present case, will not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 in so far as its use in the proceedings was commensurate with the appropriate procedural safeguards required by the Court's case-law (see, for instance, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 94-105, 10 March 2009; see also Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 25-28, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-IX; Nitulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, §§ 43-57, 22 September 2015; and, in the context of an unlawful search, Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, §§ 36-43, 3 March 2016).

• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12

  MATANOVIC v. CROATIA

  It has on occasion found that the admission in evidence of information obtained without a legal basis in domestic law, and therefore not "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, did not, in the circumstances of the case, conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 76-81, ECHR 2001-IX; Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, §§ 91-100, 18 October 2016; and Basic v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, §§ 41-50, 25 October 2016).

  [2] The same language has been used in Dragojevic (cited above, § 97) and in Basic v. Croatia (no. 22251/13, § 34, 25 October 2016).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  While no problem of fairness necessarily arises where the evidence obtained was unsupported by other material, it may be noted that where the evidence is very strong and there is no risk of its being unreliable, the need for supporting evidence is correspondingly weaker (see Bykov, cited above, § 90; Yüksel Yalçinkaya, cited above, § 303; see also Lee Davies v. Belgium, no. 18704/05, § 42, 28 July 2009; and Ba?.ic v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, § 48, 25 October 2016).
• EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 64144/14

  COSTA SANTOS c. PORTUGAL

  Au demeurant, si elle est très solide et ne prête à aucun doute, le besoin d'autres éléments à l'appui est moindre (Lee Davies, précité, § 42, Bykov, précité, § 90, et Ba?.ic c. Croatie, no 22251/13, § 48, 25 octobre 2016).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2018 - 50049/12

  PARAZAJDER v. CROATIA

  Accordingly, the admission into evidence of information obtained in breach of Article 8, as occurred in the present case, will not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 in so far as its use in the proceedings was commensurate with the appropriate procedural safeguards required by the Court's case-law (see Basic v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, §§ 42-43, 25 October 2016, with further references).
• EGMR - 3258/22 (anhängig)

  ? ARIC v. CROATIA

  Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention by the use of secret surveillance measures? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, for instance, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 78-84 and 90-101, 15 January 2015; Basic v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, §§ 32-34, 25 October 2016; Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, §§ 112-114, 4 April 2017; Grba v. Croatia, no. 47074/12, §§ 84-87, 23 November 2017, and Bosak and Others v. Croatia, nos.
• EGMR - 3262/22 (anhängig)

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention by the use of secret surveillance measures? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, for instance, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 78-84 and 90-101, 15 January 2015; Basic v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, §§ 32-34, 25 October 2016; Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, §§ 112-114, 4 April 2017; Grba v. Croatia, no. 47074/12, §§ 84-87, 23 November 2017, and Bosak and Others v. Croatia, nos.