Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUZINSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  The Court, having regard to its above conclusion under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, does not find it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13. The requirements of Article 13 are less strict than, and are absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1 (the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 31, § 88).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  It follows from the independence of the legal profession from the State that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his 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, mutatis mutandis, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, para. 36; the Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; European Commission of Human Rights, No. 9022/80, Dec. 13.7.1983, D.R. 33, p. 21; No. 27266/95, Dec. 21.10.1996, D.R. 87-B, p. 100).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45 and 46; the Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, § 28, to be published in the Court's official Reports).

• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00

  STAROSZCZYK v. POLAND

  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, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  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 appointed under a legal-aid scheme or 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 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, 03.10.2023 - 56578/11

  A.A.K. c. TÜRKIYE

  Quant à la question de savoir si la conduite de Me M.A. démissionnaire peut constituer une circonstance particulière susceptible d'engager la responsabilité de l'État au titre de la Convention (Tuzi?„ski c. Pologne (déc.), no 40140/98, 30 mars 1999) et/ou au regard de l'article 36 de la Constitution - comme la requérante le suggère (paragraphe 55, in fine, ci-dessus) - et si, par conséquent, le tribunal - avisé de la situation - devait d'office remplacer cette avocate pour que la requérante ne soit pas privée en pratique d'une assistance effective (Bertuzzi c. France, no 36378/97, § 30, CEDH 2003-III), la Cour estime pouvoir y répondre par la négative, car les garanties procédurales appropriées dont il est question ici (paragraphe 65 ci-dessus) ne se limitent pas à l'octroi d'une assistance judiciaire.

 
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND

  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, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 18353/03

  KULIKOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Compte tenu de l'indépendance du barreau à l'égard de l'Etat, la conduite de la défense appartient pour l'essentiel à l'accusé et à son avocat, que celui-ci soit commis au titre de l'aide judiciaire ou rétribué par son client ; en tant que telle, elle ne saurait, sauf circonstances exceptionnelles, engager la responsabilité de l'Etat en application de la Convention (Artico c. Italie, arrêt du 30 mai 1980, série A no 37, p. 18, § 36 ; Daud c. Portugal, arrêt du 21 avril 1998, Recueil 1998-II, p. 749, § 38 ; Tuzinski c. Pologne (déc.), no 40140/98, 30 mars 1999 ; Rutkowski c. Pologne (déc.), no 45995/99, CEDH 2000-XI ; Cuscani c. Royaume-Uni, no 32771/96, § 39, 24 septembre 2002).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE

  De l'indépendance du barreau par rapport à l'Etat, il découle que la conduite de la défense appartient pour l'essentiel à l'accusé et à son avocat, commis au titre de l'aide judiciaire ou rétribué par son client ; en tant que telle, elle ne saurait, sauf circonstances exceptionnelles, engager la responsabilité de l'Etat en application de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, arrêt Artico c. Italie du 30 mai 1980, série A n° 37, p. 18, § 36 ; arrêt Daud c. Portugal du 21 avril 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38 ; W. c. Suisse, requête n° 9022/80, décision du 13 juillet 1983, Décisions et rapports (DR) 33, p. 21 ; M.P M.L. c. Espagne, requête n° 27266/95, décision du 21 octobre 1996, DR 87-B, p. 100 ; Tuzinski c. Pologne (déc.), n° 40140/98, 30 mars 1999).
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

  ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

  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, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  EBANKS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  ARCINSKI v. POLAND

  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, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04

  SMYK v. POLAND

  Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the party 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, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; and Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04

  JELCOVAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 74454/01

  WOZNIAK v. POLAND