Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,8875
EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12 (https://dejure.org/2017,8875)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.04.2017 - 2742/12 (https://dejure.org/2017,8875)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. April 2017 - 2742/12 (https://dejure.org/2017,8875)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,8875) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

    LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    However, if the Court's findings under the substantive test are inconclusive owing to a lack of information in the file, the lack of disclosure or contradictions in the parties" interpretations of events (see Bannikova, cited above, §§ 52 and 67; see also Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X, and V. v. Finland, no. 40412/98, § 80, 24 April 2007) or if the Court finds, on the basis of the substantive test, that an applicant was subjected to incitement, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it will be necessary for the Court to proceed, as a second step, with the procedural test of incitement.

    In addition, Article 6 § 1 requires that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused" (see Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X).

    39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X (prosecution's failure to disclose material evidence to defence of entrapment on public interest), Chorniy v. Ukraine, no. 35227/06, 16 May 2013 (inability to appeal effectively against judgments due to failure to provide copies of them), Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A (failure of national law to clarify scope and manner of authority's powers of tapping and interception), Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2), no. 71525/01, 26 April 2007 (interception of telephone calls by State agents and a lack of adequate safeguards to prevent abuse), and Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V (conviction on the basis of evidence obtained by a covert listening device installed by the police for which no statutory regulatory system existed).

  • EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

    BASIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    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, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

    ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    It must in particular satisfy itself that the domestic procedure allowed that the impact of the relevant material on the safety of the conviction be considered in the light of detailed and informed argument from the defence (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 66, ECHR 2000-II).
     
  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X (prosecution's failure to disclose material evidence to defence of entrapment on public interest), Chorniy v. Ukraine, no. 35227/06, 16 May 2013 (inability to appeal effectively against judgments due to failure to provide copies of them), Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A (failure of national law to clarify scope and manner of authority's powers of tapping and interception), Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2), no. 71525/01, 26 April 2007 (interception of telephone calls by State agents and a lack of adequate safeguards to prevent abuse), and Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V (conviction on the basis of evidence obtained by a covert listening device installed by the police for which no statutory regulatory system existed).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

    BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above; Natunen, cited above, § 43, Janatuinen v. Finland, no. 28552/05, § 45, 8 December 2009; and Leas, cited above, § 81).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2015 - 41107/10

    Y. v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    In this connection the Court notes that the necessity of achieving a balance between an individual's Article 8 rights and a defendant's defence rights may be a relevant consideration in a particular case (see paragraph 152 above; see also Y. v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, § 115, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

    Brandstetter ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211).
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    Our Court does not exclude, as a matter of principle and in the abstract, the possibility that unlawfully obtained evidence may be admissible evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140).
  • EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98

    V. v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    However, if the Court's findings under the substantive test are inconclusive owing to a lack of information in the file, the lack of disclosure or contradictions in the parties" interpretations of events (see Bannikova, cited above, §§ 52 and 67; see also Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X, and V. v. Finland, no. 40412/98, § 80, 24 April 2007) or if the Court finds, on the basis of the substantive test, that an applicant was subjected to incitement, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it will be necessary for the Court to proceed, as a second step, with the procedural test of incitement.
  • EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 56551/11

    PETROVIC v. SERBIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
    With regard to the Government's submission concerning the alleged abusive conduct of the applicant's representative in submitting forged documents to the Court, the Court refers to its case-law concerning the concept of "abuse", within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, as recently set out in the Gross judgment (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; see also Petrovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 56551/11 et al., 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

    Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …

    Hat eine solche Anstiftung oder Provokation vorgelegen, so wirft die anschließende Verwertung der dadurch erlangten Beweise in einem Strafverfahren gegen die betroffene Person die Frage einer Verletzung von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 auf (…siehe u. a. Teixeira de Castro, a.a.O., Rdnrn. 35-36; und Matanovic./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 2742/12, Rdnr. 145, 4. April 2017).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 1586/15

    ROOK v. GERMANY

    Der angeklagten Person muss uneingeschränkte Akteneinsicht gewährt werden (Matanovic./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 2742/12, Rdnr. 159, 4. April 2017).
  • EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

    VOLKOV v. UKRAINE

    It was the applicant's own conduct and not the actions of the authorities that became the determinative factor in the commission of the offence (see Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, 26 March 2015, and Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, §§ 142-43, 4 April 2017).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht