Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NICULESCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) 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 ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Niculescu v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 25333/03
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03
• EGMR, 05.07.2017 - 25333/03

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  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 - 25333/03

  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, 03.04.2007 - 62617/00

  Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte schützt private Nutzung des Internets

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  The Court further reiterates that in Coscodar (cited above, § 33), it found that the presence of a warden during telephone conversations and the registration of numbers dialled from prison, albeit an interference with detainees" right to respect for their private life, was necessary in a democratic society for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, in so far as monitoring was less intrusive than interception of communications and as the monitoring was performed with the detainees" knowledge (see also concerning monitoring Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 84, Series A no. 82, and concerning the applicants" knowledge of the monitoring Copland v. the United Kingdom, no. 62617/00, § 44, ECHR 2007-I).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  In reiterates that its role is not to examine the legislation in abstracto, but to consider the manner in which it affected the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Artimenco v. Romania, no. 12535/04, §§ 31-33, 30 June 2009; and Ogica, cited above, §§ 40-41).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  The Court further reiterates that in Coscodar (cited above, § 33), it found that the presence of a warden during telephone conversations and the registration of numbers dialled from prison, albeit an interference with detainees" right to respect for their private life, was necessary in a democratic society for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, in so far as monitoring was less intrusive than interception of communications and as the monitoring was performed with the detainees" knowledge (see also concerning monitoring Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 84, Series A no. 82, and concerning the applicants" knowledge of the monitoring Copland v. the United Kingdom, no. 62617/00, § 44, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  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, 30.06.2009 - 12535/04

  ARTIMENCO c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Artimenco v. Romania, no. 12535/04, §§ 31-33, 30 June 2009; and Ogica, cited above, §§ 40-41).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  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, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  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, 15.09.2015 - 40549/11

  POEDE c. ROUMANIE

  Les dispositions légales et la jurisprudence interne concernant la recevabilité des preuves au stade de l'enquête préliminaire (acte premergatoare), dans le cadre du code de procédure pénale en vigueur au moment des faits, figurent dans les arrêts Creanga c. Roumanie [GC], no 29226/03, §§ 58 et 60, 23 février 2012, Niculescu c. Roumanie, no 25333/03, §§ 61-62, 25 juin 2013, et Blaj c. Roumanie, no 36259/04, § 65, 8 avril 2014.
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 32163/13

  GHEORGHITA ET ALEXE c. ROUMANIE

  Les dispositions légales et la jurisprudence interne concernant la recevabilité des preuves au stade de l'enquête préliminaire (acte premergatoare), dans le cadre du code de procédure pénale en vigueur au moment des faits, figurent dans les arrêts Creanga c. Roumanie ([GC], no 29226/03, §§ 58 et 60, 23 février 2012), Niculescu c. Roumanie (no 25333/03, §§ 61-62, 25 juin 2013) et Blaj c. Roumanie (no 36259/04, § 65, 8 avril 2014).