Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORLOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c,, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13+3 Violation of Art. 6-1 6-3-b and 6-3-c No violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95

  T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  The Court reiterates that, where an arguable breach of one or more of the rights under the Convention is in issue, there should be available to the victim a mechanism for establishing any liability on the part of State officials or bodies for that breach (see T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 107, ECHR 2001-V (extracts), and Lominski v. Poland (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

  MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  Subsequently, in Morris v. the United Kingdom (no. 38784/97, § 89, ECHR 2002-I) the Court found no violation of Article 6 in relation to an offer of legal aid which was subject to a contribution of GBP 240, bearing in mind the applicant's net salary levels at the time.
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38830/97

  Rechtssache C. gegen PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  Indeed, assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance counsel may provide to his client (see Czekalla v. Portugal, no. 38830/97, § 60, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention (see, for instance, Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 101, 11 December 2008, and Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 82, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  As to Article 6 § 3 (c), the Court considered in Croissant v. Germany (25 September 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 237-B) that the right to free legal assistance is not absolute; such assistance is to be provided only if the accused "[does] not [have] sufficient means to pay".
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  In particular, the Court is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 28.11.1978 - 6210/73

  Luedicke, Belkacem und Koç ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  The Court has also taken note of the applicant's argument concerning the obligation to reimburse to the State the fees awarded to A. The Court has considered in the context of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention that the term "free" has a clear and determinate meaning: "without payment, gratuitous", "not costing or charging anything, given or furnished without cost or payment" (see Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, 28 November 1978, § 40, Series A no. 29).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  First, "there are inherent time and place constraints on meetings between a detained person and his lawyer" (see Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, § 106, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04

  YEFIMENKO v. RUSSIA

  It has not been suggested that during his detention in the temporary detention centre and later on the applicant made recourse to any remedies which could have offered a reasonable prospect of success or otherwise affected the application of the six-month rule in favour of the applicant (see, for comparison, Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 75, 1 April 2010; Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 40-43, 25 November 2010; and Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, §§ 64-65, 21 June 2011).

  Any limitation on relations between clients and lawyers, whether inherent or express, should not thwart the effective legal assistance to which a defendant is entitled (see Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, § 106, 21 June 2011).

• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 45512/11

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA

  The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective legal assistance is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in another way (see Czekalla v. Portugal, no. 38830/97, § 60, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, § 108, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 48562/06

  KULIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Nor have they demonstrated that if the applicant had complained to the authorities about his detention, this would have substantiated his allegation of a criminal offence attributable to a public official and thus have required, in the context of Article 3 of the Convention, a criminal investigation (see Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, § 64, 21 June 2011).