Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 23867/94

In these circumstances, the Court considers that, in the absence of a formally valid request for leave to attend the hearing in accordance with section 296 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court was not under a positive duty to ensure of its own motion the applicant's presence at the hearing to enable him to "defend himself in person." The interests of the applicant who was, according to the court's findings, suffering from a mental illness were safeguarded through his legal representation (see mutatis mutandis the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11-12, § 22).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 23867/94

The plea should therefore be joined to the merits (see the Kremzow v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 40-41, §§ 41-42).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 23867/94

Regard must be had in assessing this question to, inter alia, the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests are presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it and their importance for the applicant (Belziuk v. Poland judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 570, § 37, with reference to the Ekbatani v. Sweden judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 12, § 25, the Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, §§ 31-32, and the aforementioned Kremzow v. Austria judgment, p. 43, §§ 58-59).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 23867/94

In these circumstances, the Court considers that, in the absence of a formally valid request for leave to attend the hearing in accordance with section 296 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court was not under a positive duty to ensure of its own motion the applicant's presence at the hearing to enable him to "defend himself in person." The interests of the applicant who was, according to the court's findings, suffering from a mental illness were safeguarded through his legal representation (see mutatis mutandis the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11-12, § 22).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 23867/94

There were no special circumstances warranting the applicant's personal presence, in particular no indication that the official defence counsel did not effectively ensure the applicant's defence (see the Stanford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, p. 11, §§ 27-28).