Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HANZEVACKI v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - finding of a violation sufficient (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 17182/07

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

• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in their entirety, were fair (see, among other authorities, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V; and Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005).

  Summing up, a scrutiny of the proceedings as a whole leads me to conclude that the applicant was not denied a fair trial (see, mutatis mutandis, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 44, Series A no. 275).

• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  The Court reiterates that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 46387/99

  WHITFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  A person charged with a criminal offence who does not wish to defend himself in person must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 99; d Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, § 31; and Whitfield and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 46387/99, 48906/99, 57410/00 and 57419/00, § 48, 12 April 2005).

 
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in their entirety, were fair (see, among other authorities, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V; and Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 14810/02

  RYAKIB BIRYUKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  Having regard to the purpose of the Convention, which is to protect rights that are practical and effective, and to the prominent place the right to a fair administration of justice holds in a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention, the Court considers that any restrictive interpretation of Article 6 would not correspond to the aim and the purpose of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25, and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, § 37, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  A person charged with a criminal offence who does not wish to defend himself in person must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 99; d Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, § 31; and Whitfield and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 46387/99, 48906/99, 57410/00 and 57419/00, § 48, 12 April 2005).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  Having regard to the purpose of the Convention, which is to protect rights that are practical and effective, and to the prominent place the right to a fair administration of justice holds in a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention, the Court considers that any restrictive interpretation of Article 6 would not correspond to the aim and the purpose of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25, and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, § 37, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 17182/07

  A person charged with a criminal offence who does not wish to defend himself in person must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 99; d Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, § 31; and Whitfield and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 46387/99, 48906/99, 57410/00 and 57419/00, § 48, 12 April 2005).

• EGMR - 60870/11 (anhängig)

  TABAGARI v. GEORGIA (II)

  - Having due regard to the fact that the applicant was expelled from the appeal proceedings and was hence prevented from presenting his closing arguments, can he be said to have been able to defend himself, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Hanzevacki v. Croatia, no. 17182/07, § 25, 16 April 2009, and Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, §§ 192-195, 26 July 2011)?.