Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KEMAL KAHRAMAN AND ALI KAHRAMAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 10, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 42104/02

  The Court considers that 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 (Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 67).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 42104/02

  If they are notified of the situation, the authorities must either replace or oblige the lawyer to fulfil those duties (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12-13, § 24; Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 42104/02

  Moreover, sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 guarantees to "everyone charged with a criminal offence" the right "to defend himself in person" and it is difficult to see how these rights could be exercised without the person concerned being present at the actual trial (see the Colozza v. Italy judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27; Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 58).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 42104/02

  If they are notified of the situation, the authorities must either replace or oblige the lawyer to fulfil those duties (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12-13, § 24; Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).

• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  MALININAS v. LITHUANIA

  Furthermore, the Court is of the view that, where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see Öcalan v. Turkey, no. 46221/99 [GC], § 210, in fine, ECHR 2005 - IV; Kahraman v. Turkey, no. 42104/02, § 44, 26 April 2007).
• EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 13109/04

  LALAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court is of the view that, where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, as provided for by Article 456 of the Lithuanian Code of Criminal Procedure, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see Öcalan v. Turkey, no. 46221/99 [GC], § 210, in fine, ECHR 2005 - IV; Kahraman v. Turkey, no. 42104/02, § 44, 26 April 2007; Malininas cited above, § 43).
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 2870/11

  VAMVAKAS c. GRÈCE (N° 2)

  Adopter l'interprétation restrictive avancée par le Gouvernement conduirait à des résultats déraisonnables incompatibles avec le libellé de l'alinéa c) et l'assistance judiciaire gratuite risquerait de se révéler un vain mot (Artico c. Italie, 13 mai 1980, § 33, série A no 37 ; Kemal Kahraman et Ali Kahraman c. Turquie, no 42104/02, § 35, 26 avril 2007, et Iglin c. Ukraine, no 39908/05, § 67, 12 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 72613/11

  BAYOGLU v. TURKEY

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the unfairness of criminal proceedings on account of the applicant's inability to benefit from effective legal assistance owing to the legal-aid lawyer's failure to attend hearings (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, §§ 33-8, Series A no. 37; Sannino v. Italy, no. 30961/03, §§ 47-53, ECHR 2006-VI; Kahraman v. Turkey, no. 42104/02, §§ 22-37, 26 April 2007).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 41188/06

  ATANASOV v.

  Furthermore, the Court is of the view that, where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey, no. 46221/99 [GC], § 210, in fine, ECHR 2005 - IV; Kahraman v. Turkey, no. 42104/02, § 44, 26 April 2007 and Halis Tekin v. Turkey, no. 64570/01, § 53, 19 July 2007).