Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Veselov and Others v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 67537/01

  SHANNON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  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, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Malininas cited above, § 43; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  SEQUEIRA contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  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, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10

  It reiterates that an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 54648/09

  Unzulässige Tatprovokation (Anstiftung; verbleibende Opferstellung im Sinne der …

  In Rauschgiftfällen hat er festgestellt, dass die Ermittler sich unter anderem dann nicht mehr passiv verhalten, wenn sie von sich aus Kontakt zu dem Beschwerdeführer aufnehmen, wenn sie ihr Angebot trotz einer anfänglichen Ablehnung seitens des Beschwerdeführers erneuern oder darauf beharren, wenn sie ihn mit Preisen, die den Marktwert übersteigen, ködern oder wenn sie durch Vorspiegelung von Entzugserscheinungen das Mitleid des Beschwerdeführers erregen (…siehe u. a. Bannikova, a. a. O., Rdnr. 47; und Veselov u. a../. Russland, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 23200/10, 24009/07 und 556/10, § 92, 2. Oktober 2012).
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

  Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …

  In Rauschgiftfällen hat er festgestellt, dass die Ermittlungsbehörden sich unter anderem dann nicht mehr passiv verhalten, wenn sie von sich aus Kontakt zu dem Beschwerdeführer aufnehmen, wenn sie ihr Angebot trotz einer anfänglichen Ablehnung seitens des Beschwerdeführers erneuern oder darauf beharren, wenn sie ihn mit Preisen, die den Marktwert übersteigen, ködern oder wenn sie durch Vorspiegelung von Entzugserscheinungen das Mitleid des Beschwerdeführers erregen (…siehe u. a. Bannikova, a.a.O., Rdnr. 47; und Veselov u. a../. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23200/10 und zwei weitere, Rdnr. 92, 2. Oktober 2012).
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  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, 18.01.2024 - 40018/16

  UGURYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that absence in the national legal system of a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising test purchases of drugs remains a structural problem which exposes applicants to an arbitrary action by the State agents and prevents the domestic courts from conducting an effective judicial review of their entrapment pleas (see Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10 and 2 others, 2 October 2012 and Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20 April 2021).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 19267/05

  ULARIU c. ROUMANIE

  Elles ont par la suite examiné le rôle de T.C. dans l'accomplissement par le requérant de l'infraction (voir, a contrario, Veselov et autres c. Russie, nos 23200/10, 24009/07 et 556/10, § 112, 2 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 13573/14

  TEPRA v. AUSTRIA

  23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, 2 October 2012, Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, 30 May 2013, Furcht v. Germany, no. 54648/09, 23 October 2014, and Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09

  VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that in several cases against Russia it has found that the applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in covert operations, particularly in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for such operations to be subject to judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010; Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 126-28, 2 October 2012; Lagutin and Others, cited above, § 134, 24 April 2014; and Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 22486/05

  ULYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The relevant domestic law governing the use of undercover operations at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgments in the cases of Lagutin and Others v. Russia (nos. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, 24 April 2014); Veselov and Others v. Russia (nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, 2 October 2012); Bannikova v. Russia (no. 18757/06, 14 October 2010); Vanyan v. Russia (no. 53203/99, 15 December 2005); and Khudobin v. Russia (no. 59696/00, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 20696/06

  YEREMTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, 2 October 2012; Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, 14 October 2010; Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, ECHR 2006-... (extracts).
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 62082/10

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The present case is identical to other Russian cases on entrapment, in which the Court found in the past violations on account of deficiencies in procedure for authorising undercover operations in the context of investigating offences concerning bribes or illegal distribution of drugs (see Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia, nos. 5753/09 and 11789/10, 30 October 2014; Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, 24 April 2014; and Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 54339/09

  ZININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 19185/05

  KOROMCHAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 46796/06

  MAMONTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 14313/07

  AKULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 51643/08

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

  LELYUYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 25730/06

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

  SHABAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 60757/12

  ANZINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 2500/07

  SERGEY LEBEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 33724/14

  DICHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 40442/07

  MANELYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 27797/10

  ROTARU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 18471/03

  RYMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06

  BAGARYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA