Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANGHEL v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Anghel v. Italy

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09
• EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 5968/09

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  Furthermore, the States" obligations under Article 8 of the Convention are to be interpreted in harmony with the general principles of international law, and, in the area of international child abduction, particular account is to be given to the provisions of the Hague Convention (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 29, Series A no. 18, and Karrer v. Romania, no. 16965/10, § 41, 21 February 2012).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  It is left to the national authorities to ensure in each individual case that the requirements of a "fair hearing" are met (Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  However, despite the absence of a similar clause for civil litigation, Article 6 § 1 may sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable to effective access to court, either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, as is done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).

 
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or be privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 30 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  The Court further notes that the requirement that an appellant be represented by a qualified lawyer before the Court of Cassation, such as applicable in the present case, cannot, in itself, be seen as contrary to Article 6. This requirement is clearly compatible with the characteristics of a highest court examining appeals on points of law and it is a common feature of the legal systems in several member States of the Council of Europe (see, for instance, Gillow v. the United Kingdom, § 69, 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109; and Vacher v. France, §§ 24 and 28, 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  However, a State cannot be considered responsible for every shortcoming of a lawyer (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00

  STAROSZCZYK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  In discharging its obligation to provide parties to civil proceedings with legal aid, when it is provided by domestic law, the State must display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see, inter alia, Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 129, 22 March 2007; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 107, 22 March 2007; and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, § 46, 12 January 2010).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  To that end they enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, which remains subject, however, to European supervision whereby the Court reviews under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of that power (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2002-I; Bianchi v. Switzerland, no. 7548/04, § 92, 22 June 2006; and Carlson v. Switzerland, no. 49492/06, § 69, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46800/99

  DEL SOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  There is no obligation under the Convention to make legal aid available for all disputes (contestations) in civil proceedings, as there is a clear distinction between the wording of Article 6 § 3 (c), which guarantees the right to free legal assistance on certain conditions in criminal proceedings, and of Article 6 § 1, which makes no reference to legal assistance (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  However, the national authorities" obligation to take measures to facilitate reunion is not absolute, since the reunion of a parent with children who have lived for some time with the other parent may not be able to take place immediately and may require preparatory measures to be taken (see Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98

  GNAHORE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 47457/99

  Bestimmung des Aufenthaltsorts gemeinsamer Kinder nach Trennung der Eltern; Eine …
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 7548/04

  BIANCHI c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96

  CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02

  BAKOWSKA v. POLAND

• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 58718/15

  STÜKER v. GERMANY

  In der vorliegenden Rechtssache ist der Gerichtshof der Auffassung, dass die von dem Beschwerdeführer auch nach Artikel 6 erhobene Rüge mit der Rüge nach Artikel 8 in engem Zusammenhang steht und dementsprechend als Teil der Rüge nach Artikel 8 geprüft werden kann (siehe, sinngemäß, Anghel./. Italien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 5968/09, Rdnrn. 69, 25.