Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55339) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZAGORODNIY v. UKRAINE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Zagorodniy v. Ukraine
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06
- EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 27004/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96
Dieter Krombach
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06
The Court reiterates that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03
SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06
Furthermore, the legal requirement for defence counsel to hold a law degree is not in violation of the above provision (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, § 39, 19 February 2009). - EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88
Klaus Croissant
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06
However, this latter right cannot be considered to be absolute either and, consequently, the national courts may override that person's choice when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, § 29, Series A no. 237-B). - EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06
In the Court's opinion, such a restriction on the free choice of defence counsel may not in itself raise an issue under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, since the particular legal qualifications can be required to ensure the efficient defence of a person (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 68, 20 January 2005) and the smooth operation of the justice system (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII).