Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JELCOVAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04
• EGMR, 02.05.2018 - 16913/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  The relevant national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168).

  In other words, there was no manifest failure by legal aid counsels to provide the applicant with effective representation so that intervention would be required under Article 6 § 3 (c) (see Kamasinski, cited above, § 65, Series A no. 168; Sejdovic, cited above, § 95).

• EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  TUZINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  The Court has also held that the special guarantees required with regard to the defence rights in criminal proceedings are not applicable in the same way in civil proceedings (see Tuzinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  It follows from the independence of the legal profession from the State that the conduct of legal assistance is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, § 2, ECHR 2000-XI, and the case-law cited therein).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  The Court also reiterates that the principle of "equality of arms" is included in the notion of fair trial mentioned in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 22, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court's task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirements of a fair trial (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, § 30, Series A no. 205).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  In that connection it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to "guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" and that assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he or she may afford an accused (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  In that connection it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to "guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" and that assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he or she may afford an accused (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  However, the Contracting States had a free choice as to the means to be used to that end and were not compelled to provide free legal aid, unless the assistance of a lawyer proved to be indispensible by reason of the complexity of the procedure (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  It observes that under the principle of equality of arms each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a disadvantage vis-aÌ?-vis his opponent (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).