Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MADER v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  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 appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  The Court further reiterates that 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 fair trial (Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  Nevertheless, assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).

 
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 27, Series A no. 76; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007; and Ebanks v. the United Kingdom, no. 36822/06, §§ 71-73, 26 January 2010).
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  In this respect, the Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial (Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, § 50, Series A no. 96).
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

  KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  In this connection the Court reiterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  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 appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96

  CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  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 appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  TUZINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  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 appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  Indeed, where an applicant has a choice of remedies and their comparative effectiveness is not obvious, the Court interprets the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the applicant's favour (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 110, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  WIESER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 56195/00

  KRUMPEL AND KRUMPELOVA v. SLOVAKIA

• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Furthermore, the Court considers that the applicant, having raised the issue in substance in his constitutional complaint, did raise before the domestic courts the complaint which he has submitted to the Court (see, by contrast, MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 137, 21 June 2011, and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

  GJINI v. SERBIA

  In previous cases, such an obligation has arisen on the basis of various explicit or implicit indications, such as: facts implied in complaints made by an applicant during criminal proceedings against him (see J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73-75, 17 April 2012); a letter from an applicant to a county court in relation to civil proceedings concerning his involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital (see M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), cited above, §§ 82-83); the presentation of evidence of ill-treatment by an applicant in civil proceedings (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 122-126, 2 April 2009); and an allegation of ill-treatment in an applicant's appeal against a first-instance judgment and in his constitutional complaint (see MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, §§ 88-89, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 17475/13

  QOSJA v. ALBANIA

  Further to this the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint where he repeated the same argument about the impartiality of judge M.H. The Constitutional Court held a hearing in the presence of the applicant's chosen lawyers, N.P. and E.A., who were able to advance all arguments they wished as regards the alleged lack of impartiality of judge M.H. It is to be noted that the applicant's lawyers did not develop any new arguments before the Constitutional Court concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of judge M.H. in addition to those which had already been stated in the applicant's appeal to the Supreme Court (compare MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 167, 21 June 2011).

 
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

  KUSIC v. CROATIA

  On 13 November 2014, in decision U-III-6559/2010 (Official Gazette no. 142/14), the Constitutional Court, referring to the standards for an effective investigation outlined in the Court's judgments in Dolenec v. Croatia (no. 25282/06, §§ 120-130 and 143-145, 26 November 2009), Gladovic v. Croatia (no. 28847/08, §§ 39-40 and 46-49, 10 May 2011), MaÄ?er v. Croatia (no. 56185/07, §§ 105-107 and 111-112, 21 June 2011), urÄ?evic v. Croatia (no. 52442/09, §§ 72-74, 77 and 83-85, ECHR 2011) (extracts) and V.D. v. Croatia (no. 15526/10, §§ 60-65, 8 November 2011), for the first time accepted a constitutional complaint concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the complainant's alleged ill-treatment.
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  BIKIC v. CROATIA

  Thus, the Court considers that the applicant, having raised the issue in substance in his constitutional complaint, did raise before the domestic courts the complaint which she has submitted to the Court (see, by contrast, MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 137, 21 June 2011, and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 4800/10

  SHAVLOKHOVA v. GEORGIA

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to the principle of legal certainty, which is a cornerstone of the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, a victim of an action allegedly in contravention of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention must take steps to keep track of the relevant criminal proceedings or lack thereof, and to lodge his or her application with due expedition once he or she becomes, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see, amongst many other authorities, Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013; Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, 9 October 2012; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  MANUKYAN v. GEORGIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 23.04.2019 - 12977/10

  VELICKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant failed to raise, even in substance, in his appeal before the domestic courts, the complaint which he has submitted to the Court (see l'Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 Septembe 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, §§ 137-139, 21 June 2011; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o., cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12

  VARTIC v. ROMANIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009; see also, Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010, MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011, Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011, Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011, and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).