Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOEVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99
• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 53329/99

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

• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  The Court observes that in the Convention system the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to free legal assistance is one element, amongst others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 16, § 27 and Pham Hoang v. France, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, p. 23, § 39).

  In answering this question, regard must be had to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 17-18, § 32-38).

  In addition, once an individual risks a loss of liberty, the interests of justice in principle call for legal representation (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, § 61 and Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 17-18, § 33).

  In its case-law, the Court has previously found that such a defect in the fairness of the proceeding can be cured if the applicant has the benefit of legal representation before the second or third instance courts, but only as long as there were no limits on the scope of the review which may be carried out by such courts (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 16, § 37 and, mutatis mutandis, Weber v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 20, § 39).

• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  The Court recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, no. 50230/99, § 33, 3 February 2004; Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).

  The Court recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, no. 50230/99, § 33, 3 February 2004; Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  The Court recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, no. 50230/99, § 33, 3 February 2004; Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).

  The Court recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, no. 50230/99, § 33, 3 February 2004; Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 15312/89

  G. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 7 § 1 of the Convention embodies the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty and prohibits in particular the retrospective application of the criminal law where it is to an accused's disadvantage (see G. v. France, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B, p. 38, § 24; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, pp. 41-42, § 35).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  The mere restrictions on the liberty of movement resulting from special supervision fall to be dealt with under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention (see Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 33, § 92 and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 19, § 39).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  The mere restrictions on the liberty of movement resulting from special supervision fall to be dealt with under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention (see Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 33, § 92 and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 19, § 39).
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 7 § 1 of the Convention embodies the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty and prohibits in particular the retrospective application of the criminal law where it is to an accused's disadvantage (see G. v. France, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B, p. 38, § 24; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, pp. 41-42, § 35).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  On the other hand, the right to enjoy a good reputation and the right to have determined before a tribunal the justification of attacks on such reputation must be considered to be civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 14, §§ 27-30).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society (see, for instance, Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 27, ECHR 2000-XII and Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 11, § 21).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02

  FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  The Court recalls that according to the established case-law, Article 6 of the Convention does not apply to proceedings for the re-opening of criminal proceedings, given that someone who applies for her case to be re-opened and whose sentence has become final is not "charged with a criminal offence" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see Erdemli v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33412/03, 5 February 2004 ECHR; Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 05.02.2004 - 33412/03

  ERDEMLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 6190/00

  R.D ./. Deutschland

  Was das Recht einer Person, der eine Straftat zur Last gelegt wird, auf unentgeltlichen Rechtsbeistand betrifft, stellt der Gerichtshof fest, dass dieses Recht einen Aspekt des Grundsatzes des fairen Verfahrens darstellt (siehe Quaranta ./. Schweiz , a.a.O., Rdnr. 27, und Toeva ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53329/99, 9. September 2004).