Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIYRAK v. RUSSIA

  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) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Criminal proceedings Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Siyrak v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 38094/05

  The Court further refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 38094/05

  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 Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 38094/05

  If they are notified of the situation, the authorities must either replace the lawyer or oblige him/her to fulfil those duties (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32, and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).

 
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 38094/05

  It is of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at first instance and on appeal (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A, and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-B).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 38094/05

  The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention 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, and Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 38094/05

  If they are notified of the situation, the authorities must either replace the lawyer or oblige him/her to fulfil those duties (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32, and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).

• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 51329/08

  VASILYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages during court hearings; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters; and Siyrak v. Russia, no. 38094/05, §§ 25-33, 19/12/2013, concerning lack of legal representation on appeal).

  Having omitted to do so, the domestic judicial authorities failed to secure effective legal assistance to the applicant during the appeal proceedings (compare Siyrak v. Russia, no. 38094/05, §§ 25-33, 19/12/2013).

• EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 12440/04

  SHEKHOV v. RUSSIA

  The above-mentioned shortcomings on the part of the court-appointed lawyer were manifest, which put the onus on the domestic authorities to intervene (see, for similar reasoning, Sannino v. Italy, no. 30961/03, § 51, ECHR 2006-VI; Sabirov v. Russia, no. 13465/04, §§ 45 and 46, 11 February 2010; and Siyrak v. Russia, no. 38094/05, §§ 29-33, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR - 81057/17 (anhängig)

  IBRAHIMI v. ALBANIA

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of a criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Siyrak v. Russia, no. 38094/05, §§ 25-33, 19 December 2013)?.