Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=23.06.2009&Aktenzeichen=31890/06
Timestamp: 2019-06-16 13:44:14+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 31890/06 - dejure.org
EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 31890/06
https://dejure.org/2009,65891
EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 31890/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,65891)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.06.2009 - 31890/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,65891)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Juni 2009 - 31890/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,65891)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,65891) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
KALETSCH v. GERMANY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 8 MRK
Zum Begriff des fairen Verfahrens und der Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung nach Art. …
Im vorliegenden Fall deutet nichts darauf hin, dass die Polizeibeamten bei der Einholung und Vollstreckung des Durchsuchungsbeschlusses bösgläubig handelten oder vorsätzlich gegen formelle Regelungen verstießen (vgl. K../. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31890/06, 23. Juni 2009).
He cannot therefore be regarded as having been afforded quantifiable redress for the alleged breach of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X; Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, § 16, 13 June 2006; Donner v. Austria, no. 32407/04, § 27, 22 February 2007; Taavitsainen v. Finland, no. 25597/07, §§ 30 and 31, 8 December 2009, and contrast Dzelili v. Germany, no. 65745/01, §§ 101-03, 10 November 2005; Cordier v. Germany (dec.), no. 71741/01, 19 January 2006; Bochev, cited above, § 83; Kaletsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 31890/06, 23 June 2009; and Stein v. Germany (dec.), no. 12895/05, 7 July 2009).
EGMR - 12398/10 (anhängig)
TÜCER v. TURKEY
The application further relates to the lawfulness of the search of the house in which the applicant was staying as a guest (see, mutatis mutandis, Isildak v. Turkey, no. 12863/02, 30 September 2008) and the use of evidence obtained thereby to convict him (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaletsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 31890/06, 23 June 2009).
e) Did the admission as evidence of the results of the search of the home in which the applicant was staying as a guest impair the fairness of the proceedings in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaletsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 31890/06, 23 June 2009)?.
EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07
MALKOV v. ESTONIA
In cases concerning the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the national authorities can afford adequate redress, in particular by reducing the applicant's sentence in an express and measurable manner (see, among others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 77, ECHR 2006-V; Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 66, 13 January 2009; Beck, cited above; and Kaletsch v. Germany, (dec.), no. 31890/06, 23 June 2009).

References: Art. 6
 Art. 6
 Art. 7
 Art. 8
 § 16
 § 27
 § 83

EGMR 
 § 1
 § 77
 § 66