Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12622/04

Thereafter for the purposes of the Convention he was a person convicted by a competent court, pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention and, consequently, ceased to have been detained pending investigation and trial under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000, ECHR 2000-X; and as a classic authority, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9).

Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12622/04

Concerning the complaint about questioning in the absence of counsel, the Court notes that the application of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) to the preliminary investigation depends on the special features of the proceedings and particular circumstances of the case (see Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X).

Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12622/04

Furthermore, the applicant was represented shortly afterwards, and his interrogation without a lawyer during the preliminary stage of the proceedings did not deprive him of the opportunity of subsequently defending himself during the pre-trial investigation and trial (see Zhelezov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48040/99, 23 April 2002).

Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12622/04

In the present case there is no evidence that the applicant, who had the statutory right to remain silent, ever requested to see counsel (see Latimer v. the United Kingdom, dec., no 12141/04, 31 May 2005).

Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12622/04

Thereafter for the purposes of the Convention he was a person convicted by a competent court, pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention and, consequently, ceased to have been detained pending investigation and trial under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000, ECHR 2000-X; and as a classic authority, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9).