Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUSISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  No violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing);No violation of Article 6+6-3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RUSISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (30)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 50541/08

  IBRAHIM ET AUTRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  The relevant general principles concerning access to a lawyer and, more specifically, representation by a lawyer of one's choosing have been summarised by the Court in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 255-74, 13 September 2016) and Dvorski v. Croatia ([GC], no. 25703/11, § 76-82, ECHR 2015) respectively (for a more recent reference see also Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, §§ 112-20, 12 May 2017, and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 114-50, 9 November 2018).

  Complaints under Article 6 about the investigation stage tend to crystallise at the trial itself when the prosecution seeks to rely on evidence obtained during the pre-trial proceedings - the phase in which the restrictions on Article 6 rights applied - and the defence seeks its exclusion (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 et 3 others, § 254, 13 September 2016 and Beuze, cited above, § 173).

  50541/08 and 3 others, § 255, 13 September 2016), and the rights under the Convention have to be ensured in such a way that they are not "theoretical or illusory" but "practical and effective" (see Salduz, cited above, § 51, with further references).

• EGMR, 05.02.2020 - 71409/10

  BEUZE CONTRE LA BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  The relevant general principles concerning access to a lawyer and, more specifically, representation by a lawyer of one's choosing have been summarised by the Court in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 255-74, 13 September 2016) and Dvorski v. Croatia ([GC], no. 25703/11, § 76-82, ECHR 2015) respectively (for a more recent reference see also Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, §§ 112-20, 12 May 2017, and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 114-50, 9 November 2018).

  According to the Court's case-law, where the right to legal assistance has been restricted, it must be established whether there were compelling reasons for the restriction and, thereafter, whether the overall fairness of the proceedings was irretrievably prejudiced (see, for example, the recapitulation of the case-law in Beuze v. Belgium, [GC], no 71409/10, § 139 9 November 2018).

  As the Court held in Beuze v. Belgium ([GC], no. 71409/10, § 135 (b), 9 November 2018): "[t]he non-participation of the lawyer in investigative measures such as identity parades... or reconstructions" may undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  A judgment delivered by a jury may be appealed against only on points of law (see Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, § 21, 16 November 2021).

  The relevant general principles were summarised in Murtazaliyeva v. Russia ([GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139, 144-49 and 158-68, 18 December 2018; see also Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, §§ 51-55, 16 November 2021).

  Finally, I should add that in the present case and in Kikabidze v. Georgia (no. 57642/12, 16 November 2021), the Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of insufficiently reasoned decisions declaring the applicants' appeals on points of law inadmissible.

• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 27582/07

  ÇELEBI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  As the Court has previously stated (Mehmet Zeki Çelebi v. Turkey, no. 27582/07, § 51, 28 January 2020):.

  The formal charging of the applicant would otherwise have occurred earlier (the defects were not "cured" by the subsequent proceedings - see Salduz, cited above, § 58, and critically in this regard also, the concurring opinion of Judge O'Leary, § 5, referring to Mehmet Zeki Çelebi v. Turkey, no. 27582/07, § 51, 28 January 2020).

• EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 51979/17

  DOYLE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  Thus, the Court did not have the benefit of an assessment by the domestic courts as to whether and to what extent the particular circumstances of the applicant's interviews and the investigation affected the overall fairness of his trial (compare Doyle v. Ireland, no. 51979/17, §§ 94-95 and 101, 23 May 2019).

  It is therefore of special importance for the national courts to assess the overall fairness of a trial when, as in the present case, there is reason to have doubts about it and the unfairness of the trial has been reasonably alleged by the accused (see also, in this regard, Doyle v. Ireland, no. 51979/17, § 101, 23 May 2019, where the national court had assessed shortcomings in the pre-trial proceedings but not the overall fairness).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 30965/17

  BJARKI H. DIEGO v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  The applicant was therefore not provided with the possibility of remedying a situation that he claimed was contrary to the requirements of the Convention or domestic verification that those requirements had been met (see recently Bjarki H. Diego v. Iceland, no. 30965/17, § 59, 15 March 2022).

  Furthermore - and an omission in this regard weighs even more heavily in favour of a violation of Article 6 § 3 of the Convention - the domestic courts and authorities have to assess allegations that point towards an unfair trial, because the Court can otherwise not assess whether the applicant's right to a fair trial was secured (see Bjarki H. Diego v. Iceland, no. 30965/17, § 59, 15 March 2022).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 41269/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  Hence, this is the moment that should be taken as the starting point in respect of the application of the safeguards set out in Article 6 of the Convention, including the right to legal assistance provided in Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see and compare Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, § 47, 14 October 2010; Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, no. 41269/08, §§ 29-31, 16 June 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 94, 6 October 2015; Truten v. Ukraine, no. 18041/08, §§ 66 and 70, 23 June 2016; Krivoshey v. Ukraine, no. 7433/05, §§ 78-80, 23 June 2016; Dubois v. France, no. 52833/19, §§ 45-46, 28 April 2022 and Wang v. France, no. 83700/17, § 42, 28 April 2022 [both not final yet]).

  The reason why trial and appellate judges need to engage with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) complaints is in order to assess to what extent the information provided when the accused was not represented substantially may have affected his or her position (see Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, no. 41269/08, § 37, 16 June 2015; A.T. v. Luxembourg, no. 30460/13, § 72, 9 April 2015 and Beuze, cited above, § 178).

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  "[T]he mere nomination [of a defence lawyer] does not ensure effective assistance..." (see Artico v Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Elif Nazan Seker, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 38907/09

  KOÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  Additionally, the lack of compelling reasons weighs more heavily in favour of the finding of a violation (ibid., § 265; see also Bayram Koç v. Turkey, no. 38907/09, §§ 23 et seq., 5 September 2017).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 46182/08

  LAZU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  The manner of the application of Article 6 § 1 to proceedings after an appeal depends on the special features of the proceedings involved; account must be taken of the entirety of the procedural system in the domestic legal order and of the role of the particular court therein (see, inter alia, Botten v. Norway, 19 February 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, and Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 46182/08, § 33, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 50372/99

  GOKTEPE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 78477/11

  RAMDA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.01.2013 - 53406/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 75460/10

  AKDAG v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 22744/07

  TURK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 20903/15

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE et 3 autres affaires
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 41954/10

  ?žEKER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.1999 - 31913/96

  SARIC v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 27.02.2020 - 21447/11

  LOBZHANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 42425/19

  ROGERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 43137/09

  MAGY c. BELGIQUE et une autre affaire
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 67318/09

  TWOMEY, CAMERON AND GUTHRIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 57645/14

  AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4722/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 18041/08

  TRUTEN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 7433/05

  KRIVOSHEY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 52833/19

  DUBOIS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 83700/17

  WANG c. FRANCE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  The nature and workings of the jury trial system introduced in Georgia on 1 October 2010 were described in Kikabidze v. Georgia (no. 57642/12, §§ 21-24, 16 November 2021) and Rusishvili v. Georgia (no. 15269/13, §§ 27-30, 30 June 2022).

  Accordingly, this was an important procedural safeguard available to the applicant, which he failed to duly employ (see in this connection Rusishvili v. Georgia, no. 15269/13, § 67, 30 June 2022).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.06.2024 - C-144/23

  KUBERA - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 267 Abs. 3 AEUV - Vorlagepflicht …

  {FN:89} Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteil vom 30. Juni 2022, Rusishvili/Georgien (CE:ECHR:2022:0630JUD001526913, § 75).
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09

  LEKA v. ALBANIA

  The applicant did not contest the validity of those signatures (compare Rusishvili v. Georgia, no. 15269/13, § 41, 30 June 2022).
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 26134/19

  KHAVSHABOVA v. GEORGIA

  The document in question, which was also signed by L.R., the legal aid lawyer assigned to the applicant under the legal aid scheme, and the interpreter, contains no note from the applicant concerning her choice of legal assistance (contrast Rusishvili v. Georgia, no. 15269/13, § 41, 30 June 2022).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 3473/19

  GÜNDÜZ v. TURKEY

  Rn. 54 In that connection, the Court notes that a finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, due to the failure of the domestic courts to give a reasoned judgment, does not automatically necessitate an award of compensation in order to provide the applicant with adequate redress for the breach of that provision (see, among other authorities, Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 203, 27 October 2020, and Rusishvili v. Georgia, no. 15269/13, § 84, 30 June 2022, where the findings of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the domestic courts' failure to deliver a reasoned judgment constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction, and compare, among other authorities, Cupiał v. Poland, no. 67414/11, § 72, 9 March 2023, and Loucaides v. Cyprus, no. 60277/19, § 55, 18 October 2022, where awards of non-pecuniary damage were made for breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention stemming from the domestic courts' failure to deliver reasoned judgments).