Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 50720/99

In principle his acts or omissions are not directly attributable to a State authority and as such may not, except in particular circumstances, engage the latter's responsibility under the Convention (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36, and Kamasinski v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 32-33, § 65, and Comm. Report 5.5.88, p. 55, § 155).

In view of the foregoing and the differences, as regards the seriousness of the problems stemming from the shortcomings of the legal assistance afforded to the applicant and the question whether the applicant was guaranteed the effective enjoyment of his defence rights, between this case and the cases of Daud v. Portugal (judgment cited above, pp. 739 et seq., particularly pp. 756-757), Artico v. Italy (judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37) and Kamasinski v. Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168), the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be dismissed pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 50720/99

In principle his acts or omissions are not directly attributable to a State authority and as such may not, except in particular circumstances, engage the latter's responsibility under the Convention (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36, and Kamasinski v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 32-33, § 65, and Comm. Report 5.5.88, p. 55, § 155).

In view of the foregoing and the differences, as regards the seriousness of the problems stemming from the shortcomings of the legal assistance afforded to the applicant and the question whether the applicant was guaranteed the effective enjoyment of his defence rights, between this case and the cases of Daud v. Portugal (judgment cited above, pp. 739 et seq., particularly pp. 756-757), Artico v. Italy (judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37) and Kamasinski v. Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168), the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be dismissed pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 50720/99

The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair (see, mutatis mutandis, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34 and 35, § 34).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 50720/99

As regards the other complaints, the Court points out first of all that the presumption of innocence embodied in paragraph 2 and the various rights of which a non-exhaustive list appears in paragraph 3 are constituent elements, amongst others, of the notion of a fair trial in criminal proceedings (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Unterpertinger v. Austria, 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, § 29, Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 19, Pullar v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 706, § 45, and Foucher v. France, 18 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 464, § 30).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 50720/99

As regards the other complaints, the Court points out first of all that the presumption of innocence embodied in paragraph 2 and the various rights of which a non-exhaustive list appears in paragraph 3 are constituent elements, amongst others, of the notion of a fair trial in criminal proceedings (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Unterpertinger v. Austria, 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, § 29, Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 19, Pullar v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 706, § 45, and Foucher v. France, 18 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 464, § 30).