Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRYMBACH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3-c (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Trymbach v. Ukraine

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

  Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

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

  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 Salduz v Turkey, [GC] no. 36391/02, § 54, 27 November 2008, § 51; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A; and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

  The Court reiterates that the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 of that Article and thus they are to be examined together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

  The Court emphasises 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 (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

  Although the absence of a lawyer during the first two weeks of the investigation were clearly not in compliance with the requirements of the domestic law, the Court reiterates that while its duty, according to Article 19 of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], no. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 2 requires that no representative of a State or a public authority should declare a person guilty of an offence before their guilt has been established by a "court" (see, among other authorities, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

  As a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question witnesses against him, either when they make their statements or at a later stage (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

  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 Salduz v Turkey, [GC] no. 36391/02, § 54, 27 November 2008, § 51; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A; and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 44385/02

  Although the absence of a lawyer during the first two weeks of the investigation were clearly not in compliance with the requirements of the domestic law, the Court reiterates that while its duty, according to Article 19 of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], no. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 3016/16

  BOGDAN v. UKRAINE

  As in the case of Trymbach v. Ukraine (no. 44385/02, § 64, 12 January 2012), there had been no violation of the applicant's rights.
• EGMR, 31.05.2012 - 38560/04

  Diriöz ./. Türkei

  Toutefois, pour être effective aux fins de la Convention, la renonciation au droit de prendre part au procès doit se trouver établie de manière non équivoque et être entourée d'un minimum de garanties correspondant à sa gravité (Salduz, précité § 59 ; Yoldas c. Turquie, no 27503/04, § 51, 23 février 2010 ; Trymbach c. Ukraine, no 44385/02, § 61, 12 janvier 2012).