Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (incompatibility ratione personae non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 8932/05
- EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
- EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 8932/05
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (15)
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
The Government referred to the Court's case law in similar cases (Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 18; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, § 33).The Government further recalled that a State could not be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes (Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 36).
Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or be privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
Article 6 § 1 might sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proved indispensable for an effective access to court either because legal representation was rendered compulsory, as was done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 26).This is particularly so of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12-13, § 24).
- EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46800/99
DEL SOL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
In this context, the Court points out that there is no obligation under the Convention to make legal aid available for disputes (contestations) in civil proceedings, as there is a clear distinction between the wording of Article 6 § 3 (c), which guarantees the right to free legal assistance on certain conditions in criminal proceedings, and of Article 6 § 1, which does not contain any reference to legal aid (Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 20, ECHR 2002-II; Essaadi v. France, no. 49384/99, § 30, 26 February 2002).
- EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98
TUZINSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or be privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
GNAHORE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
It is also essential for the legal aid system to offer individuals substantial guarantees to protect those having recourse to it from arbitrariness (Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 38, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99
RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or be privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97
ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.12.2001 - 29692/96
R.D. v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
In discharging obligation to provide parties to civil proceedings with legal aid, when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (Del Sol, R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001). - EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations" (see, among many other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1544-45, § 44; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, § 13-15). - EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80
GODDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether the relevant authorities should take action (see the above-mentioned Daud judgment, p. 750, §§ 40-42) and whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as "practical and effective" (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, p. 11, § 27; Rutkowski v. Poland, cited above). - EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 18353/03
KULIKOWSKI c. POLOGNE
Il conclut, en s'appuyant sur les arrêts rendus par la Cour dans les affaires Sialkowska c. Pologne (no 8932/05, 22 mars 2007) et Staroszczyk c. Pologne (no 59519/00, 22 mars 2007), qu'il n'a pas pu exercer effectivement devant la Cour suprême son droit de se défendre avec l'assistance d'un défenseur.On ne peut donc pas dire que le requérant se soit trouvé placé dans une situation où il lui restait si peu de temps pour faire introduire un pourvoi en cassation qu'il a été privé d'une possibilité réaliste de porter et de défendre sa cause devant la juridiction de cassation (voir, a contrario, Sialkowska c. Pologne, no 8932/05, §§ 114-115, 22 mars 2007, où le délai avait commencé à courir lorsque la décision avait été communiquée à l'avocat commis d'office et où la requérante n'avait été informée du refus de l'avocat que trois jours avant l'expiration du délai).
[8] Sialkowska c. Pologne, no 8932/05, 22 mars 2007.
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09
ANGHEL v. ITALY
In discharging its obligation to provide parties to civil proceedings with legal aid, when it is provided by domestic law, the State must display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see, inter alia, Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 129, 22 March 2007; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 107, 22 March 2007; and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, § 46, 12 January 2010). - EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 2870/11
VAMVAKAS c. GRÈCE (N° 2)
En fonction des circonstances de la cause, les autorités compétentes devront ou non prendre des mesures (Daud, précité, §§ 40-42) et, s'agissant de la procédure dans son ensemble, la défense pourra ou non être considérée comme « concrète et effective ", caractères requis par l'article 6 § 3 c) (Rutkowski c. Pologne (déc.), no 45995/99, CEDH 2000-XI, Staroszczyk c. Pologne, no 59519/00, §§ 121-122, 22 mars 2007, Sialkowska c. Pologne, no 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 mars 2007, et Ebanks c. Royaume-Uni, no 36822/06, § 73, 26 janvier 2010).
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 48132/07
ANDREYEV v. ESTONIA
The competent 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; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; Sannino v. Italy, no. 30961/03, § 49, ECHR 2006-VI; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 99, 22 March 2007; and Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 56, 19 May 2009). - EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10
MUSCAT v. MALTA
In discharging its obligation to provide parties to civil proceedings with legal aid, when it is provided by domestic law, the State must display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see, inter alia, Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 129, 22 March 2007; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 106, 22 March 2007; and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, § 46, 12 January 2010). - EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 12947/04
ANTONI WOJCIECHOWSKI v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning issues raised by the present application are set out in the Court's judgment of Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 20-47, 22 March 2007.