Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 3)

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings 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) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04
• EGMR, 24.02.2016 - 21124/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  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, and Tsonyo Tsonev (no. 2), cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

  BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  It is not for it to substitute its own assessment of the evidence made by these courts, unless their assessment was arbitrary or capricious (see Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 51, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that a qualified lawyer would have been able to clarify the grounds set out 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; Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 64; Granger v. the United Kingdom, 28 March 1990, § 47, Series A no. 174), thus ensuring respect for the principle of equality of arms (see Tsonyo Tsonev (no. 2), cited above, § 41).

 
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  Until now, the Court has found that a flagrant denial of justice has occurred or would occur only in certain very exceptional circumstances: conviction in absentia coupled with an impossibility to obtain from a court which has heard the accused a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (see Enhorn v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56529/00, § 33, ECHR 2005-I; Stoichkov, cited above, §§ 55-56; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 84, ECHR 2006-II); proceedings amounting to a mockery of basic fair trial principles (see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 212-16, 286, 436 and 461-63, ECHR 2004-VII); a trial that is summary in nature and conducted with total disregard for the rights of the defence (see Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, no. 13284/04, § 47, ECHR 2005-XI); detention without access to an independent and impartial tribunal able to review its lawfulness (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, § 101, 20 February 2007); deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country (ibid.); or a trial in which evidence obtained under torture is used to secure a conviction (see Othman (Abu Qatada), cited above, §§ 263-67).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  The Court finds that the applicant's assertion would be true only if the criminal proceedings against him amounted to a flagrant denial of justice, that is, were manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 51, 24 March 2005).
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that a qualified lawyer would have been able to clarify the grounds set out 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; Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 64; Granger v. the United Kingdom, 28 March 1990, § 47, Series A no. 174), thus ensuring respect for the principle of equality of arms (see Tsonyo Tsonev (no. 2), cited above, § 41).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  Similarly, the fact that the testimony emanated from an officer who had already dealt with the applicant and had taken part in the uncovering of the offence does not in itself raise a fairness issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V).
• EKMR, 02.07.1998 - 32054/96

  SAGIR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  The situation at hand is therefore far from being the paradigmatic case of double jeopardy envisaged by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (compare with Sagir v. Austria, no. 32054/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1998, unreported, and with R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 13284/04

  BADER AND KANBOR v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  Until now, the Court has found that a flagrant denial of justice has occurred or would occur only in certain very exceptional circumstances: conviction in absentia coupled with an impossibility to obtain from a court which has heard the accused a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (see Enhorn v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56529/00, § 33, ECHR 2005-I; Stoichkov, cited above, §§ 55-56; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 84, ECHR 2006-II); proceedings amounting to a mockery of basic fair trial principles (see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 212-16, 286, 436 and 461-63, ECHR 2004-VII); a trial that is summary in nature and conducted with total disregard for the rights of the defence (see Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, no. 13284/04, § 47, ECHR 2005-XI); detention without access to an independent and impartial tribunal able to review its lawfulness (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, § 101, 20 February 2007); deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country (ibid.); or a trial in which evidence obtained under torture is used to secure a conviction (see Othman (Abu Qatada), cited above, §§ 263-67).
• EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95

  PESTI AND FRODL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  ENHORN c. SUEDE
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31982/96

  R.T. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien