Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance Free legal assistance Legal assistance of his own choosing Required by interests ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 2376/03

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 38072/97

  NAVIEDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  While the authorities responsible for appointing counsel have to ensure that they are capable of effectively defending the accused (see Mills v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35685/97, 5 December 2000), national judges must also strike a balance between the need to ensure that the accused have enough time to prepare and the need to ensure that a trial progresses in a reasonably expeditious way (see Naviede v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38072/97, 7 September 1999).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  The Court observes that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I), as it is not a court of appeal from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 62116/00

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (ausreichende Zeit und Gelegenheit zur …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  The point in issue is whether and to what extent this situation impacted negatively on the fairness of the proceedings against the applicant, because the rights of those charged with a criminal offence to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to effective legal assistance are elements, among others, of the concept of a fair trial (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 28, Series A no. 76; Twalib v. Greece, 9 June 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Mattick v. Germany (dec.), no. 62116/00, ECHR 2005-VII; and Padalov v. Bulgaria, no. 54784/00, § 41, 10 August 2006).

 
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 54784/00

  PADALOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  The point in issue is whether and to what extent this situation impacted negatively on the fairness of the proceedings against the applicant, because the rights of those charged with a criminal offence to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to effective legal assistance are elements, among others, of the concept of a fair trial (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 28, Series A no. 76; Twalib v. Greece, 9 June 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Mattick v. Germany (dec.), no. 62116/00, ECHR 2005-VII; and Padalov v. Bulgaria, no. 54784/00, § 41, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  It must therefore be determined whether these proceedings concerned a "criminal" matter within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. The relevant principles for making this determination have recently been summarised in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the Court's judgment in the case of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  It is subject to two conditions: the persons concerned must lack sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, and the interests of justice must require that they be granted such assistance (see, among other authorities, Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, § 39, Series A no. 243).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that a qualified lawyer would have been able to clarify the grounds adduced by the applicant in his appeal and effectively counter the pleadings of the public prosecutor at the hearing (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 34 in fine, Series A no. 37, and Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 64), thus ensuring respect for the principle of equality of arms.
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that a qualified lawyer would have been able to clarify the grounds adduced by the applicant in his appeal and effectively counter the pleadings of the public prosecutor at the hearing (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 34 in fine, Series A no. 37, and Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 64), thus ensuring respect for the principle of equality of arms.
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  The fact that it was not punishable by imprisonment is not decisive (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 53 and 54, Series A no. 73; Lauko, cited above, § 58; and Kadubec, cited above, § 52).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  The point in issue is whether and to what extent this situation impacted negatively on the fairness of the proceedings against the applicant, because the rights of those charged with a criminal offence to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to effective legal assistance are elements, among others, of the concept of a fair trial (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 28, Series A no. 76; Twalib v. Greece, 9 June 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Mattick v. Germany (dec.), no. 62116/00, ECHR 2005-VII; and Padalov v. Bulgaria, no. 54784/00, § 41, 10 August 2006).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.06.2023 - C-58/22

  Parchetul de pe lânga Curtea de Apel Craiova - Ersuchen um Vorabentscheidung - …

  Ähnlich EGMR, Urteil vom 14. Januar 2010, Tsonyo Tsonev/Bulgarien (Nr. 2), CE:ECHR:2010:0114JUD000237603, § 52.
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 40265/04

  GEORGIEVI v. BULGARIA

  In so far as this argument may be regarded as an objection in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court observes that the second applicant did not seek an adjournment of the hearing before the Varna Regional Court in order for her newly appointed counsel to be able to acquaint herself better with the case file and prepare her defence more thoroughly (see Murphy v. the United Kingdom, no. 4681/70, Commission decision of 3 October 1972, Collection 43, p. 1, and Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 2376/03, § 35, 14 January 2010), nor did she try to appeal against that court's judgment or raise the point before the higher court (see, mutatis mutandis, Twalib v. Greece, 9 June 1998, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Bogumil v. Portugal, no. 35228/03, §§ 29, 30 and 49 in limine, 7 October 2008).