Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 68273/14

In contrast, such a possibility had existed in Ravnsborg v. Sweden (judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B), where the applicant had been fined on the basis of an Article of the Swedish Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence against the proper conduct of court proceedings.

[8]With reference to Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B, where the presence of a ceiling was an element taken into account in finding that the fine was not criminal in nature (§ 35).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 68273/14

Finally, they referred to cases in which the Court had found that Article 6 was applicable under its criminal limb (citing Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, and T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, ECHR 2000-XII) as well as, at domestic level, the case of Stefán Karl Kristjánsson (see paragraphs 41 et seq. above).

On the third Engel criterion, the Court in Zaicevs, comparing with Ravnsborg and Putz, both cited above, and taking into account T. v. Austria (no. 27783/95, §§ 63-67, ECHR 2000-XII), noted that the deprivation of liberty imposed on the applicant had not merely been an alternative measure whereby an unpaid fine was converted into imprisonment but had constituted the principal means of punishment.

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 68273/14

Finally, they referred to cases in which the Court had found that Article 6 was applicable under its criminal limb (citing Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, and T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, ECHR 2000-XII) as well as, at domestic level, the case of Stefán Karl Kristjánsson (see paragraphs 41 et seq. above).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 68273/14

In this context, it is noteworthy that the Court has frequently referred to the fact that the specific status of lawyers gives them a central position in the administration of justice, as intermediaries between the public and the courts, and has pointed to the fact that, in order for members of the public to have confidence in the administration of justice, they must have confidence in the ability of the legal profession to provide effective representation (see, mutatis mutandis, Kyprianou, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 173, ECHR 2005-XIII and Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 139, 4 April 2018).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 68273/14

In the latter connection, the Court has also considered the nature of the penalty (see, for example, Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 50, Series A no. 73; Weber, cited above, § 34, and Ravnsborg, cited above, § 35).