Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 29.06.2007

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02, 25624/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,13816
EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02, 25624/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,13816)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.06.2007 - 15809/02, 25624/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,13816)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. Juni 2007 - 15809/02, 25624/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,13816)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,13816) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2008, 3549
  • NZV 2009, 50 (Ls.)
 
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 ... (46)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 76574/01

    ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    The question of the use of the statements in criminal proceedings did not arise, as his refusal to make a statement was not used as evidence: it constituted the offence itself (see Allen v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76574/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

    The Court noted that there were no pending or anticipated criminal proceedings against the applicant and the fact that he may have lied in order to prevent the revenue authorities from uncovering conduct which might possibly lead to a prosecution did not suffice to bring the privilege against self-incrimination into play (see Allen v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76574/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    The case of Jalloh v. Germany ((GC), no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-...) concerned the use of evidence in the form of drugs swallowed by the applicant, which had been obtained by the forcible administration of emetics.

    For the first time, it considered the following factors: (a) the nature and degree of compulsion used to obtain the evidence; (b) the weight of the public interest in the investigation and punishment of the offence at issue; (c) the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure, and (d) the use to which any material so obtained is put (see Jalloh v. Germany (GC), no. 54810/00, §§ 117-121, ECHR 2006-...).

  • EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 43486/98

    TIRADO ORTIZ and LOZANO MARTIN v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    In examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court will have regard, in particular, to the following elements: the nature and degree of the compulsion, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedures and the use to which any material so obtained is put (see, for example, Tirado Ortiz and Lozano Martin v. Spain (dec.), no. 43486/98, ECHR 1999-V; Heaney and McGuinness, cited above, §§ 51-55; and Allan, cited above, § 44).

    Procedures of the latter kind do not, unless in exceptional circumstances, attain the minimum level of severity so as to contravene Article 3. Moreover, though constituting an interference with the suspect's right to respect for private life, these procedures are, in general, justified under Article 8 § 2 as being necessary for the prevention of criminal offences (see, inter alia, Tirado Ortiz and Lozano Martin, ((dec.), no. 43486/98, ECHR 1999-V)).

  • EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

    FUNKE v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    In any event, Article 6 of the Convention can be applicable to cases of compulsion to give evidence even in the absence of any other proceedings, or where an applicant is acquitted in the underlying proceedings (Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, §§ 39 and 40 and Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2000-XII).

    First, there are cases relating to the use of compulsion for the purpose of obtaining information which might incriminate the person concerned in pending or anticipated criminal proceedings against him, in other words, in respect of an offence with which that person has been "charged" within the autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p. 22, § 44; Heaney and McGuinness, cited above, §§ 55-59; and J.B., cited above, §§ 66-71).

  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    Since, in paragraphs 35 and 36, the majority rightly accepted that (the criminal limb of) Article 6 is applicable in the present case (which is consistent with the reasoning in the Öztürk v. Germany judgment, 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73) it should, in my opinion, also have accepted that the right to remain silent ought to have been respected.
  • EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

    SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    In addition to the cases on the right to remain silent (e.g. Saunders v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, § 62), they referred to the limitations on access to court (e.g. Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, § 58), to case-law showing that in certain circumstances Contracting States were permitted to reverse the onus of proof of certain matters provided that this did not disturb the fair balance between the interests of the individual and the general interests of the community (e.g. Salabiaku v. France, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 28), to acceptable limitations on the rights of the defence in cases on equality of arms (Fitt v. the United Kingdom (GC), no. 29777/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-II) and the questioning of witnesses (S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-V) and also to the general principle that it is primarily for national law to regulate the admissibility of evidence, including incriminating evidence (e.g. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 38, ECHR 2000-V).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

    ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    In addition to the cases on the right to remain silent (e.g. Saunders v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, § 62), they referred to the limitations on access to court (e.g. Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, § 58), to case-law showing that in certain circumstances Contracting States were permitted to reverse the onus of proof of certain matters provided that this did not disturb the fair balance between the interests of the individual and the general interests of the community (e.g. Salabiaku v. France, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 28), to acceptable limitations on the rights of the defence in cases on equality of arms (Fitt v. the United Kingdom (GC), no. 29777/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-II) and the questioning of witnesses (S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-V) and also to the general principle that it is primarily for national law to regulate the admissibility of evidence, including incriminating evidence (e.g. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 38, ECHR 2000-V).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 6563/03

    Schweigerecht und Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Grundsätze des Schutzes gemäß Art. 6

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    The case of Mr O'Halloran appears at first sight to resemble the case of Saunders (referred to above), in which the applicant complained of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence which, he claimed, had been obtained in breach of Article 6. Mr Francis' case, on the other hand, would seem to be more similar to the cases of Funke (cited above), J.B. v. Switzerland (no. 31827/96, ECHR 2001-III), Heaney and McGuinness (cited above), and Shannon v. the United Kingdom, (no. 6563/03, 4 October 2005), in each of which the applicant was fined for not providing information, and in each of which the Court considered the fine independently of the existence or outcome of underlying proceedings.
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    "94. ...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 Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1462, § 34).
  • EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 48539/99

    Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Umgehungsschutz; Schweigerecht; materieller /

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
    As regards the use of evidence obtained in breach of the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court recalls that these are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see, inter alia, Saunders v. the United Kingdom, (...) § 68; Heaney and McGuinness, cited above, § 40; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; and Allan (Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, ECHR 2002-IX), § 44).
  • BGH, 18.05.2010 - 5 StR 51/10

    Verurteilung wegen Mordkomplott aufgehoben

    Im Einklang mit der Auffassung des Großen Senats für Strafsachen (BGHSt 42, 139, 152; vgl. auch BGHSt 49, 56, 58) und in Übereinstimmung mit der die Selbstbelastungsfreiheit auf Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK stützenden Rechtsprechung des EGMR (StV 2003, 257 (m. Anm. Gaede); NJW 2008, 3549; 2010, 213) sieht der Senat durch die Anwendung von Zwang den Kernbereich der Selbstbelastungsfreiheit des Angeklagten als verletzt an.
  • EuGH, 22.06.2021 - C-439/19

    Das Recht der Union über den Datenschutz steht der lettischen Regelung entgegen,

    Diese Analyse wird bestätigt durch die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, wonach Verkehrsverstöße trotz einer Tendenz zur "Entkriminalisierung" dieser Verstöße in einigen Staaten angesichts des zugleich präventiven und repressiven Zwecks der verhängten Sanktionen und des Schweregrads, den diese erreichen können, im Allgemeinen als Verstöße strafrechtlicher Natur anzusehen sind (vgl. in diesem Sinne Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, 21. Februar 1984, Öztürk/Deutschland, CE:ECHR:1984:0221JUD000854479, Nrn. 49 bis 53, vom 29. Juni 2007, 0'Halloran und Francis/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2007:0629JUD001580902, Nrn. 33 bis 36, und vom 4. Oktober 2016, Rivard/Schweiz, CE:ECHR:2016:1004JUD002156312, Nrn. 23 und 24).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot;

    The right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent and presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seeks to prove the case against the accused without resorting to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, §§ 68"69, Reports 1996-VI; Allan, cited above, § 44; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 94-117; and O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom (GC), nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 53-63, ECHR 2007-...).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 25624/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,73853
EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 25624/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,73853)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.06.2007 - 25624/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,73853)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. Juni 2007 - 25624/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,73853)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,73853) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2008, 3549
 
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 ... (28)

  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot;

    The right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent and presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seeks to prove the case against the accused without resorting to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, §§ 68"69, Reports 1996-VI; Allan, cited above, § 44; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 94-117; and O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom (GC), nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 53-63, ECHR 2007-...).
  • EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 13201/05

    Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Voraussetzungen für belastende Schlüsse aus dem

    36.  In O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom (GC) (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 55-63, ECHR 2007"VIII) and, subsequently, in Lückhof and Spanner (nos. 58452/00 and 61920/00, §§ 52-59, 10 January 2008), the Court found that the obligation for the registered keeper of the vehicle to disclose, on pain of a fine, who had been the driver at the time when a traffic offence was committed did not violate the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination.
  • EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

    MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

    However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case (see O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, § 53, ECHR 2007-III).
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