Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EBANKS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  TUZINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  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 Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  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 Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Relying on Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29-31, Series A no. 269; and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, the Government contended that there was no basis for the Court to proceed to make a new assessment of the facts as found by the domestic courts as their conclusions were neither arbitrary nor unfair.

 
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 27, Series A no. 76; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Relying on Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29-31, Series A no. 269; and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, the Government contended that there was no basis for the Court to proceed to make a new assessment of the facts as found by the domestic courts as their conclusions were neither arbitrary nor unfair.
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Nevertheless, assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  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 Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Furthermore, rules on admissibility of evidence were primarily a matter for regulation under national law (referring to Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Similarly, the decision as to whether in a particular case it is appropriate to call witnesses to testify is one for the domestic courts (see Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).

• BGH, 05.03.2020 - StB 6/20

  Sofortige Beschwerde des Pflichtverteidigers gegen die Ablehnung der von ihm …

  (2) Soweit die Beschwerdeführer geltend machen, der Angeklagte habe die Entscheidung, sich in Abkehr der bisherigen Verteidigungsstrategie geständig einzulassen, allein getroffen und hierzu ihre Beratung abgelehnt, ist - wie das Oberlandesgericht in dem angefochtenen Beschluss zu Recht ausgeführt hat - zunächst zu berücksichtigen, dass ein Angeklagter nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte in Ausübung seines Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1, Abs. 3 Buchst. c EMRK maßgeblich auf seine Verteidigungsstrategie einwirken können muss und ihm - grundsätzlich beraten durch seine Verteidiger - insoweit die letzte Entscheidungskompetenz zusteht (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 26. Januar 2010 - 36822/06, Ebanks v. UK, Rn. 82; zustimmend Lam/Meyer-Mews, NJW 2012, 177, 179).
• 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).