Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHIMIDZU AND BERLLAQUE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 648/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-X; Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, p. 30, § 9, Series A no. 6).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 648/06

  The Privy Council, relying on this Court's rulings in Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, §§ 48-49 and Lutz v. Germany, judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, § 59, found that Article 6 of the Convention did not require a discretion to award costs to an acquitted defendant.
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 648/06

  In respect of the presumption of innocence (and referring to this Court's findings in Lutz, cited above; Leutscher v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), the Privy Council found that where the domestic court had a discretion to order costs against a prosecutor in favour of an acquitted defendant, the court should not refuse to make such an order in terms which threw doubt on the presumption of innocence.

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 42180/19

  JAKUTAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  The Government also referred to Shimidzu and Berllaque v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 648/06, 30 March 2010), in which the Court had found that to interpret Article 6 as including the right to reimbursement of legal costs in criminal proceedings would be in conflict with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), which guarantees free legal assistance to those without sufficient means to pay for it.

  The Court has consistently held that the Convention does not grant a person who is charged with a criminal offence but is subsequently acquitted a right to reimbursement of costs incurred in criminal proceedings against him or her, however necessary those costs might have been (see Lutz v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 59, Series A no. 123; Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A; Yassar Hussain v. the United Kingdom, no. 8866/04, § 20, ECHR 2006-III; Shimidzu and Berllaque v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 648/06, 30 March 2010; Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom (revision), nos.