Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JEMELJANOVS v. LATVIA

  No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 37364/05
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 37364/05
• EGMR - 37364/05

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.04.2006 - 30961/03

  SANNINO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 37364/05

  Noting D."s conduct in the proceedings (see paragraph 26 above), the nature of his applications, and the fact that the adjudication of the case was at an early stage, it cannot be concluded that his activities could be characterised as passive or manifestly negligent to the extent of denying the applicant the right to defend himself through legal assistance (compare with the case of Gabrielyan, cited above, in which the somewhat passive behaviour of the defence did not amount to a manifest failure to provide legal assistance, and contrast with the case of Sannino v. Italy, no. 30961/03, § 50, ECHR 2006-VI, in which the Court found a violation on the grounds that replacement lawyers had no knowledge of the case).
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 37364/05

  Nevertheless, the interests of justice are to be judged with reference to the facts of a case as a whole, having regard, inter alia, to the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the possible sentence, the complexity of the case, and the personal situation of an applicant (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 205; see also Zdravko Stanev, cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 37364/05

  Although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09

  LEKA v. ALBANIA

  As regards the implications of restrictions on the right to free legal assistance, the Court's current approach, as confirmed in several Grand Chamber cases, requires that that question be assessed as an element of the fairness of the proceedings as a whole (see Hamdani v. Switzerland, no.10644/17, § 29, 28 March 2023, citing Jemeļjanovs v. Latvia, no. 37364/05, §§ 77 and 78, 6 October 2016; Beuze, cited above, §§ 120-123; and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 90, 18 December 2018).
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 10644/17

  HAMDANI c. SUISSE

  On peut donc voir dans ces droits des aspects particuliers de la notion de procès équitable en matière pénale contenue à l'article 6 § 1. Ces droits minimaux garantis par l'article 6 § 3 ne sont toutefois pas des fins en soi: leur but intrinsèque est toujours de contribuer à préserver l'équité de la procédure pénale dans son ensemble (Jemeļjanovs c. Lettonie, no 37364/05, §§ 77-78 et 100, 6 octobre 2016, Beuze c. Belgique [GC], no 71409/10, §§ 120-123 et 147, 9 novembre 2018, et Murtazaliyeva c. Russie [GC], no 36658/05, § 90, 18 décembre 2018, et les références citées dans ces arrêts).