Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56741) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KONONOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02
JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04
For example, the Court considers that before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003 and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 87, 1 March 2006, Hermi, cited above, § 74 and Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, § 68, 11 December 2008). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04
However, the personal attendance of the defendant does not necessarily take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168). - EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89
LALA c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04
It is of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at first instance and on appeal (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-B). - EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04
Although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A). - EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04
In any event, the Court considers that, even assuming that it was a part of the lawyer's duty to inform the applicant about peculiarities of appeal procedure, the presiding judge, being the ultimate guardian of the fairness of the proceedings, cannot be absolved of his or her responsibility to explain to the defendant the procedural rights and obligations and secure their effective exercise (see, for example, Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002, Timergaliyev v. Russia, no. 40631/02, § 59, 14 October 2008 and Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 68, Series A no. 268-B).