Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK; Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. c EMRK
  Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen Verteidigerbeistand bei der ersten Vernehmung im Ermittlungsverfahren (Konsultationsrecht; Anwesenheitsrecht; Reichweite der Selbstbelastungsfreiheit; Schweigerecht; prinzipielles Verwertungsverbot für selbstbelastende Aussagen ohne ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSANDR ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-3-c Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim rejected Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Papierfundstellen

• HRRS 2010 Nr. 228

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

  Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  In Salduz v. Turkey (GC) (no. 36391/02, §§ 55, 27 November 2008) the Court held that as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right.

  In Salduz v. Turkey the Court held that as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police (see Salduz v. Turkey (GC), no. 36391/02, § 55, ECHR 2008-...).

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  The Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the (person) has been substantially affected" (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, § 57, 19 February 2009; Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35; and Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, §§ 67 and 74, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).

 
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Merits (a) General principles 36. The Court reiterates that Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its requirements (see Öcalan v. Turkey (GC), no. 46221/99, § 131, ECHR 2005-IV, and Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters, Article 6 of the Convention comes into play as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court, such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51, and more recently, O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom (GC), nos.
• EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  The Court also reiterates that the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6 (see Bykov v. Russia (GC), no. 4378/02, § 92, ECHR 2009-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

  BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Moreover, the Court observes that the present case is different from previous cases concerning the right to legal assistance in pre-trial proceedings (see Salduz (GC), §§ 12-17 and Öcalan (GC), § 131, both cited above; see also Shabelnik, cited above, § 59; Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 7-10, 11 December 2008; Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, §§ 14-22, 2 August 2005; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 41, ECHR 2001-X; Quinn v. Ireland, no. 36887/97, §§ 10-13, 21 December 2000; Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, § 55, ECHR 2000-VI; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, §§ 8-15, ECHR 2000-VI; and Imbrioscia, §§ 9-19, cited above) because the applicant was not formally arrested or interrogated in police custody.
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 35811/97

  KOLU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Moreover, the Court observes that the present case is different from previous cases concerning the right to legal assistance in pre-trial proceedings (see Salduz (GC), §§ 12-17 and Öcalan (GC), § 131, both cited above; see also Shabelnik, cited above, § 59; Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 7-10, 11 December 2008; Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, §§ 14-22, 2 August 2005; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 41, ECHR 2001-X; Quinn v. Ireland, no. 36887/97, §§ 10-13, 21 December 2000; Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, § 55, ECHR 2000-VI; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, §§ 8-15, ECHR 2000-VI; and Imbrioscia, §§ 9-19, cited above) because the applicant was not formally arrested or interrogated in police custody.
• EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 25624/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  15809/02 and 25624/02, § 35, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 36408/97

  AVERILL c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 36887/97

  QUINN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 28135/95

  MAGEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 31827/96

  Verstoß gegen die Grundsätze des fairen Verfahrens wegen des Zwangs der Vorlegung …
• EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren und Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Kriterien für eine …

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 41269/08

  SCHMID-LAFFER c. SUISSE

  La Cour en déduit que, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, il appartenait à la police d'informer la requérante de ses droits de ne pas s'incriminer soi-même et de garder le silence lors de l'interrogatoire Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, § 52, 18 février 2010).
• EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

  Thus, for example, a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (see, among other authorities, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2010), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (see Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 February 2010; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 23, 23 September 2010; and Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296) and a person who has been formally charged, under a procedure set out in domestic law, with a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004-XI) can all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence" and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.
• EuGH, 07.09.2023 - C-209/22

  Rayonna prokuratura Lovech, TO Lukovit (Fouille corporelle)

  Insoweit ergibt sich aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 6 EMRK, auf den sich der zwölfte Erwägungsgrund der Richtlinie 2013/48 bezieht, dass in Bezug auf das Recht auf Beistand durch einen Verteidiger im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c eine Durchsuchung, die bei einer Straßenkontrolle vorgenommen wurde und zu selbstbelastenden Erklärungen geführt hat, zu keiner nennenswerten Beschränkung der Handlungsfreiheit der betroffenen Person führt, die dafür ausreichen könnte, dass ein Rechtsbeistand ab diesem Verfahrensstadium zwingend wäre (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 18. Februar 2010, Zaichenko/Russland, CE:ECHR:2010:0218JUD003966002, §§ 47 und 48).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  Thus, for example, a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (see, among other authorities, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2010), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (see Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 February 2010; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 23, 23 September 2010; and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 296, 13 September 2016) and a person who has been formally charged, under a procedure set out in domestic law, with a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004-XI) can all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence" and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.02.2019 - 4755/16

  BEGHAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Thus, for example, a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (see, among other authorities, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2010), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (see Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 February 2010; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 23, 23 September 2010; and Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296) and a person who has been formally charged, under a procedure set out in domestic law, with a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004-XI) can all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence" and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.11.2019 - C-659/18

  VW (Droit d'accès à un avocat en cas de non-comparution) - Justizielle …

  14 Vgl. insbesondere EGMR, Urteile vom 19. Februar 2009, Shabelnik/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2009:0219JUD001640403, § 57), und vom 18. Februar 2010, Zaichenko/Russland (CE:ECHR:2010:0218JUD003966002, § 42).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 69729/12

  FILKIN c. PORTUGAL

  Ainsi, une personne arrêtée parce qu'elle est soupçonnée d'avoir perpétré une infraction pénale (Brusco c. France, no 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 octobre 2010), une personne soupçonnée, interrogée sur son implication dans des faits constitutifs d'une infraction pénale (Heaney et McGuinness c. Irlande, no 34720/97, § 42, CEDH 2000 XII, Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 février 2010, Yankov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 4570/05, § 23, 23 septembre 2010, et Schmid-Laffer c. Suisse, no 41269/08, §§ 30-31, 16 juin 2015), une personne interrogée parce qu'elle est soupçonnée d'être impliquée dans une infraction, mais traitée comme un témoin (Kaleja c. Lettonie, no 22059/08, §§ 36-41, 5 octobre 2017), ainsi qu'une personne formellement inculpée d'une infraction pénale dans le cadre d'une procédure prévue par le droit interne (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Pélissier et Sassi c. France [GC], no 25444/94, § 66, CEDH 1999-II, et Pedersen et Baadsgaard c. Danemark [GC], no 49017/99, § 44, CEDH 2004-XI), peuvent toutes être considérées comme « accusées'et prétendre à la protection de l'article 6. C'est la survenance même du premier de ces événements, indépendamment de leur ordre chronologique, qui déclenche l'application de l'article 6 sous son volet pénal (Simeonovi, précité, § 111).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 67496/10

  VAN WESENBEECK c. BELGIQUE

  Toutefois, les préoccupations d'intérêt général ne sauraient justifier des mesures vidant de leur substance même les droits de la défense d'un requérant (Jalloh, précité, § 97, Bykov c. Russie [GC], no 4378/02, § 93, 10 mars 2009, Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, § 39, 18 février 2010, et Ibrahim et autres, précité, § 252).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 19181/09

  SÎRGHI c. ROUMANIE

  Compte tenu de l'enchainement des événements, la Cour estime que la présence du requérant au siège de la police s'apparente plutôt à un interrogatoire d'un suspect qu'à une collecte d'informations (voir, a contrario, Smolik v Ukraine, no 11778/05, § 54, 19 janvier 2012) ou un contrôle routier sans limites remarquables de la liberté d´action du requérant (voir, a contrario, Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 47-48, 18 février 2010).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 52833/19

  DUBOIS c. FRANCE

  Dans Simeonovi, précité, § 111, elle a également précisé qu'une personne soupçonnée, interrogée sur son implication dans des faits constitutifs d'une infraction pénale peut être considérée comme « accusée'et prétendre à la protection de l'article 6 de la Convention (voir également Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 février 2010, Yankov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 4570/05, § 23, 23 septembre 2010, et Ibrahim et autres, précité, § 296).
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 10917/15

  SASSI ET BENCHELLALI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 43693/20

  SPITERI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 83700/17

  WANG c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13510/14

  SEVERINI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 11990/15

  FOUTAS ARISTIDOU v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 2833/13

  BAJIC v. NORTH MACEDONIA