Statul de drept și admisibilitatea probelor în jurisprudența Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului
The rule of law and the admissibility of evidence in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

Summary/Abstract: The present study analyses from the point of view of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) a topic of current interest in the Romanian law, namely the topic of the legality of evidence as a link between the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. By corroborating general principles and individual solutions emerges a differentiation mechanism used by the ECHR in order to distinguish between possible breaches of the domestic law in respect to their nature and degree. While in principle the way the law is interpreted and the breach of law allegedly committed in obtaining and presenting the evidence are by themselves irrelevant from the perspective of the fair trial, the arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable interpretation of the law, which violates the principles of the rule of law, is relevant from that perspective. A serious breach of law can mean the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained thereby. The ECHR doesn’t lay down general rules regarding the assessment of the arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable character of the interpretation of the law and, respectively, the seriousness of its breach, but from the case-law emerges a series of relevant criteria, such as the manifest error of assessment, the breach of law committed in bad faith or systematically, inevitable discovery of evidence and the purpose of law.

• Details
• Contents