Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FITT c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 29777/96
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 29777/96

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 29777/96

  The Court recalls that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set out in paragraph 1 (see the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 34, § 33).

  The facts of this case can therefore be distinguished from those of the Edwards judgment, where by the time of the appeal proceedings the defence had received most of the missing information and the Court of Appeal was able to consider the impact of the new material on the safety of the conviction in the light of detailed and pertinent argument from the defence (Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 35, §§ 36-37).

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 29777/96

  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 the Brandstetter v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, pp. 27-28, §§ 66-67).

• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

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

  Invoquant les arrêts Jasper et Fitt (Jasper c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 27052/95, §§ 51-58, 16 février 2000, non publié, et Fitt c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 29777/96, §§ 44-50, CEDH 2000-II), le Gouvernement allègue qu'en l'espèce le ministère public n'a pris aucune décision quant à savoir quels éléments devaient ou ne devaient pas être révélés à la défense, mais a dûment soumis les preuves documentaires au juge du fond.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.07.2011 - C-27/09

  Frankreich / Volksmudschaheddin-Organisation Iran - Rechtsmittel - Restriktive …

  Vgl. Urteile des EGMR (Große Kammer) vom 16. Februar 2000, Rowe und Davis/Vereinigtes Königreich (Beschwerde Nr. 28901/95, 2000-II, Ziff. 61), Fitt/Vereinigtes Königreich (Beschwerde Nr. 29777/96, 2000-II, Ziff. 45), und (4. Sektion) vom 24. April 2007, V./Finnland (Beschwerde Nr. 40412/98, Ziff. 75).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Cela étant, la Cour fait observer que, à chaque fois qu'elle a conclu à la non-violation de l'article 6 de la Convention par le Royaume-Uni dans des affaires où des éléments de preuve n'avaient pas été divulgués, elle a soigneusement examiné l'état de la législation et de la pratique britanniques en la matière (voir l'aperçu qu'elle en a récemment donné dans l'affaire Botmeh et Alami c. Royaume-Uni, no 15187/03, §§ 20 et suiv., 7 juin 2007 ; voir aussi Fitt c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 29777/96, §§ 30-33, CEDH 2000-II).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND

  These principles were also stated in two other judgments handed down on the same day: Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 27052/95, § 53, 16 February 2000), and Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 29777/96, § 46, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 6684/05

  MCKEOWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Instead, it considered the House of Lords ruling in R. v. H and C [2004] A.C. 134 (see paragraph 32 below) and reviewed this Court's judgments in Rowe and Davis and Jasper, both cited above; Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, ECHR 2000-II; Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 15187/03

  BOTMEH AND ALAMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In contrast, no violation was found in Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27052/95 or Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, both ECHR 2000-II, where the prosecution placed all material evidence which it intended to withhold before the trial judge, ex parte, for his ruling on disclosure.
• EGMR, 23.11.2004 - 39835/03

  GLOVER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  (a) The failure to disclose material in the criminal proceedings against the applicant was different from that in cases such as Jasper, Fitt (Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, ECHR 2000-II), Rowe and Davis and Edwards and Lewis because in each of those cases it was accepted that the withheld evidence - which formed no part of the prosecution case against the accused - could be relevant to the defence case.
• EGMR, 18.12.2003 - 63000/00

  SKONDRIANOS c. GRECE

  Le droit à un procès pénal contradictoire implique, pour l'accusation comme pour la défense, la faculté de prendre connaissance des observations ou éléments de preuves produits par l'autre partie en vue d'influencer la décision judiciaire (Fitt c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 29777/96, § 44, CEDH 2000-II).