Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96, 35237/97, 34595/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MEFTAH ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 et 6-3-c en ce qui concerne l'impossibilité de prendre la parole à l'audience de la Cour de cassation Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne l'absence de communication des conclusions de l'avocat général Préjudice moral - ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c as regards the fact that the applicant was not permitted to speak at the hearing in the Court of Cassation Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards the failure to supply a copy of the Advocate-General's submissions Non-pecuniary damage - ...
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 32911/96
- EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 32911/96
- EGMR, 26.04.2001 - 32911/96
- EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96, 35237/97, 34595/97
Wird zitiert von ... (99) Neu Zitiert selbst (15)
- EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97
FRETTE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
The Court notes that in the instant case the applicants were unable to establish the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions before the hearing in the Court of Cassation and, consequently, were unable to reply thereto by a note to the court in deliberations (see, mutatis mutandis, Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 50, ECHR 2002-I), whereas they were entitled to lodge before the hearing a pleading bearing their signature (see paragraph 24 above).This finding is in line with the case-law of the Court which I can in principle agree to (see, as the most recent authority, Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I).
However, recently in Fretté v. France (no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I) the Court ruled that those requirements applied also to a case in which a litigant before the Conseil d'Etat had elected, with the Conseil d'Etat's permission, not to be represented.
- EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95
KREUZ c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
The Court has often generally stated that the Convention is intended to guarantee "not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" (see, among other authorities, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 57, ECHR 2001-VI). - EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
The Court has in some cases accepted that in the sphere of Article 6 of the Convention national authorities - depending on the circumstances - should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy (see, mutatis mutandis, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, § 58, and Beer v. Austria, no. 30428/96, § 18, 6 February 2001).
- EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
Thus, proceedings for leave to appeal or proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even where the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the appeal or cassation court (see the following judgments: Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, § 30; Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 58; Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 31; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 44-45, § 106; and Bulut v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 358, § 41). - EGMR, 22.06.1993 - 12914/87
MELIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
The Court therefore considers complaints under Article 6 § 3 under those two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, p. 15, § 34; Vacher v. France, 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2147, § 22; Melin v. France, 22 June 1993, Series A no. 261-A, p. 11, § 21; and Foucher, cited above, p. 464, § 30). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
The Court reiterates that the guarantees contained in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the general concept of a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1. The various rights of which a non-exhaustive list appears in paragraph 3 reflect certain of the aspects of the notion of a fair trial in criminal proceedings (see, among other authorities, Unterpertinger v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, § 29, and Granger v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 174, p. 17, § 43). - EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79
Öztürk ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
Furthermore, as a "criminal charge" is an autonomous notion, the Court is not bound by the classifications in domestic law, which have only relative value (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, pp. 17-18, §§ 49-50; Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 20, § 47; and Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 34). - EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88
Klaus Croissant
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
In any event, the right to conduct one's own defence could be regulated by domestic law (see, among other authorities, Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B; Correia de Matos v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48188/99, ECHR 2001-XII). - EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78
Pakelli ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
The Court reiterates that the right for everyone charged with a criminal offence to be defended by counsel of his own choosing (see Pakelli v. Germany, judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 15, § 31) cannot be considered to be absolute 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, cited above, p. 33, § 29). - EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
When compliance with paragraph 3 is being reviewed, its basic purpose must not be forgotten nor must it be severed from its roots (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 15, § 32). - EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85
DELTA c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78
Sutter ./. Schweiz
- EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81
MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86
BENDENOUN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 33060/10
Vertretungsverbot gegen einen Anwalt ohne vorherige Durchführung einer mündlichen …
- EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12
MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)
Given that "criminal charge" is an autonomous notion and having regard to the impact which the procedure for examining an appeal on points of law may have upon the determination of a criminal charge, including the possibility of correcting errors of law, the Court has found that such a procedure is covered by the safeguards of Article 6 (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-VII), even where it is treated as an extraordinary remedy in domestic law and concerns a judgment against which no ordinary appeal lies.Finally, the reading given (in paragraph 64 of the judgment) to the cases of Meftah and Others v. France (ï›GCï, nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, ECHR 2002-VII, § 40) and Morrell and Morris v. the United Kingdom (2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, § 54) is rather strained.
- EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
Looking to European law generally, which provides useful guidance (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, §§ 43-45, 92 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 54, ECHR 2002-VII; and Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court notes that Pellegrin sought support in the categories of activities and posts listed by the European Commission and by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in connection with the exception to the freedom of movement (see Pellegrin, cited above, § 66).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.04.2010 - C-550/07
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwältin Juliane Kokott gilt das Anwaltsgeheimnis in …
115 - EGMR, Urteil Meftah u. a./Frankreich vom 26. Juli 2002 (Beschwerde-Nr. 32911/96 u. a., Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2002-VII, §§ 45 bis 48 und die dort zitierte Rechtsprechung). - EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25703/11
DVORSKI c. CROATIE
The Court has consistently held that the national authorities must have regard to the defendant's wishes as to his or her choice of legal representation, but may override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (ibid., § 29; see also Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 66, 20 January 2005; Klimentyev v. Russia, no. 46503/99, § 116, 16 November 2006; Vitan v. Romania, no. 42084/02, § 59, 25 March 2008; Pavlenko, cited above, § 98; Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, § 52, 24 November 2011; and Martin, cited above, § 90). - EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 7186/09
DI TRIZIO c. SUISSE
La Cour rappelle que les modalités d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention en appel ou en cassation dépendent des particularités de la procédure dont il s'agit ; il faut prendre en compte l'ensemble du procès mené dans l'ordre juridique interne et le rôle qu'y a joué la juridiction d'appel ou de cassation (voir, par exemple, Meftah et autres c. France [GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, § 41, CEDH 2002-VII, et Hermi c. Italie [GC], no 18114/02, § 60, CEDH 2006-XII). - EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 61139/00
LE DUIGOU c. FRANCE
Il se réfère notamment aux arrêts Reinhardt et Slimane-Kaïd c. France (31 mars 1998, Recueil 1998-II) et Meftah et autres c. France (26 juillet 2002, [GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, CEDH 2002-VII).La Cour rappelle que, pour savoir si le requérant a subi une atteinte à son droit à un procès équitable, il faut prendre en compte les particularités de la procédure devant la chambre criminelle de la Cour de cassation (voir notamment l'arrêt Meftah et autres c. France [GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, § 42, CEDH 2002-VII).
- EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 72783/01
NESME c. FRANCE
Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents sont décrits dans les arrêts Reinhardt et Slimane-Kaïd c. France du 31 mars 1998 (Recueil des arrêts et décisions, 1998-II), Voisine c. France du 8 février 2000 (no 27362/95) et Meftah et autres c. France du 26 juillet 2002 ([GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, CEDH 2002-VII, §§ 47-52), Slimane-Kaïd c. France (no 2), no 48943/99, 27 novembre 2003.Il estime que cette pratique, visant à informer les demandeurs au pourvoi du sens des conclusions dudit magistrat est parfaitement conforme à la jurisprudence de la Cour (Reinhardt et Slimane-Kaïd c. France précitée ; Meftah et autres c. France [GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, CEDH 2002-VII).
- EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 65935/01
M.B. c. FRANCE
Il expose qu'à la suite notamment de l'arrêt Meftah et autres c. France (arrêt du 26 juillet 2002 [GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, CEDH 2002-VII), des mesures ont été prises au sein de la Cour de cassation pour modifier les modalités d'instruction et de jugement des affaires.Il va de soi que l'exercice d'un tel choix et, partant, la renonciation aux avantages procurés par l'assistance d'un avocat aux Conseils doivent se trouver établis de manière non équivoque » (Meftah et autres c. France [GC], 26 juillet 2002, nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, §§ 46-47, CEDH-VII).
- EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 42758/98
K.A. ET A.D. c. BELGIQUE
La Cour rappelle que le droit à une procédure contradictoire au sens de l'article 6 § 1, tel qu'interprété par la jurisprudence, « implique en principe le droit pour les parties à un procès de se voir communiquer et de discuter toute pièce ou observation présentée au juge, fût-ce par un magistrat indépendant, en vue d'influencer sa décision'(voir, en matière pénale, les arrêts Meftah et autres c. France [GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, 26 juillet 2002 et J.J. c. Pays-Bas du 27 mars 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-II, p. 613, § 43 in fine). - EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 25930/12
BASTIAENS ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12
ZUBAC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 18353/03
KULIKOWSKI c. POLOGNE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.07.2017 - C-270/17
Tupikas
- EGMR, 22.02.2018 - 65173/09
DRASSICH c. ITALIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 32806/09
EGIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 20.03.2009 - 12686/03
GOROU c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 60244/12
KUZU ET AYAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 30671/08
MASIREVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 4696/11
LES AUTHENTIKS ET SUPRAS AUTEUIL 91 c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11
VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 75022/01
PETYO POPOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 39765/04
SALE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 41486/98
BORANKOVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 33301/13
SCAVETTA c. MONACO
- EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 12433/11
MUNCACIU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 11950/02
TEDESCO c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 69225/01
FABRE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 30687/05
TUGLUK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 22980/09
OMEROVIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 17814/10
TOURISME D'AFFAIRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.04.2011 - 35079/06
PATOUX c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 54091/08
PERVUSHIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 399/02
BOCELLARI ET RIZZA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 54730/00
P.D. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 65823/01
GOLINELLI ET FREYMUTH c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 3774/02
VESQUE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 58742/00
PHILIPPE PAUSE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 71445/01
FENECH contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 60546/00
MENHER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.01.2004 - 54730/00
P.D. contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 36451/97
DE BIAGI c. SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 23.01.2003 - 31520/96
RICHEN ET GAUCHER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 56616/00
HAGER contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 51406/99
GAUCHER contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 44719/10
GILANOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 27703/16
VENET c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 68964/13
MUJEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 32486/14
SAMARDZIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5666/04
TRAILESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 20041/10
ETERNIT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06
ZAGORODNIY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 38615/02
LEDRU c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 18223/04
CRUZ DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 26814/02
SOCIETE DIFFUSION PEDAGOGIQUE CALEDONIENNE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 25456/02
BASSIEN-CAPSA c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 2361/03
FLEURY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 5949/02
JOYE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 65935/01
M.B. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 63059/00
LAFAYSSE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 38410/97
FONTAINE ET BERTIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 05.06.2003 - 67114/01
COORBANALLY contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 60546/00
MENHER contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 46148/99
NOVOTNÝ contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 4370/12
BARAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 14729/06
FORTUNSKIY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 28841/09
LES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 54984/09
MARC-ANTOINE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 65295/09
BOUSSOUAR c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
WERSEL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 17696/07
CAVAJDA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 25685/06
TEDESCHI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 32456/04
KOPECKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 43386/06
MONTOLIO c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 43980/04
MIRAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 39279/04
PENA ALVAREZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 24252/04
BELOFF c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03
PELLO v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 43432/02
VERDU VERDU c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18592/03
MOURGUES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 3211/05
VUILLEMIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 10397/03
FOUGERE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 48925/99
TURK TICARET BANKASI MUNZAM SOSYAL GUVENLIK EMEKLI VE YARDIM SANDIGI VAKFI v. …
- EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 8112/02
DE LUCA c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 3774/02
VESQUE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 35009/02
MAILLARD c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 74587/01
LACAS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 61092/00
PAUSE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 1814/02
STEPINSKA c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 30324/96
SMOLEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 39555/07
RADCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 9781/13
LIVIU CONSTANTIN CONTAC ET CONSTANTIN CONTAC c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 77773/01
FLANDIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 25864/04
RAWAY ET WERA c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 30408/02
MARION c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 67114/01
COORBANALLY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 4505/12
TRUGLIA c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 8065/04
PAGES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.03.2004 - 74927/01
TSARIDI et BELLOU contre la GRECE