Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance Required by interests of justice) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 16404/03
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03
• EGMR - 16404/03

Wird zitiert von ... (34)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  The Government compared the circumstances of the instant case with those in the cases of Funke v. France (25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A) and Saunders v. the United Kingdom (17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), in which the Court found violations of the applicants" rights not to incriminate themselves.
• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 31827/96

  Verstoß gegen die Grundsätze des fairen Verfahrens wegen des Zwangs der Vorlegung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  As regards the use of evidence obtained in breach of the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court recalls that these are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair trial under Article 6. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see, inter alia, Saunders v. the United Kingdom, cited above § 68; Heaney and McGuinness, cited above, § 40; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; and Allan, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  The moment from which Article 6 applies in "criminal" matters also depends on the circumstances of the case, as the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial prompts the Court to prefer a "substantive", rather than a "formal", conception of the "charge" contemplated by Article 6 § 1. The Court is compelled to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the procedure in question (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 44, Series A no. 35).

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1462, § 34).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  The Court also reiterates that, 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 Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  Thus, Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 19/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  19/05/2009.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08

  Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …

  (c) Article 6 and pre-trial proceedings 253. The primary purpose of Article 6 as far as criminal matters are concerned is to ensure a fair trial by a "tribunal" competent to determine "any criminal charge" (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001"X; Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, § 52, 19 February 2009; and Dvorski, cited above, § 76).
• EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 54806/18

  SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE

  On 2 April 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Court (no. 16404/03) alleging that his conviction for the murder of K. had been based on incriminating evidence that had been obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and his right not to incriminate himself and that he had been hindered in the effective exercise of his right to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer when he had been questioned at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings (see paragraph 9 above).

  On 19 February 2009 the Court declared the application partly admissible and found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, 19 February 2009).

  On 28 February 2011 the applicant lodged his second application with the Court (no. 16404/03), alleging that the Supreme Court, in the course of re-examining his case in cassation proceedings, had breached a number of provisions of Article 6 of the Convention.

  The Court notes with respect to the applicant's criminal case that in two previous judgments (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, 19 February 2009, and Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 15685/11, 1 June 2017), it found a number of violations of Article 6 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 41269/08

  [FRE]

  Il suffit que ses déclarations soient susceptibles d'affecter substantiellement la position de l'accusé (Chabelnik c. Ukraine, no 16404/03, § 57, 19 février 2009), les déclarations faites lorsque l'accusé n'est pas informé de son droit de garder le silence et de ne pas s'incriminer lui-même, devant être traitées avec précaution extrême (Loutsenko c. Ukraine, no 30663/04, § 51, 18 décembre 2008).

• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The relevant provisions of Articles 59 and 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 concerning the right to legal assistance and the right not to incriminate oneself can be found in the case of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, § 25, judgment of 19 February 2009).

  As regards the trial court's decision to remove the applicant's father from the proceedings, the Court notes that the possibility to be represented by relatives provided for by the domestic law is complementary to the right to have a lawyer and as such does not attract the protection of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention concerning right to legal assistance (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, § 39, 19 February 2009).

• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  The relevant provisions of Articles 59 and 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 concerning the right to legal assistance and the right not to incriminate oneself can be found in the judgment of 19 February 2009 in the case of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, § 25).

  Insofar as the applicant complained of the refusal of the Regional Court to appoint his father, who was not a lawyer, as his lay defender, the Court notes that in the case of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, § 39, 19 February 2009) it has already found that the ability to be represented by relatives provided by domestic law was complementary to the right to legal assistance and did not as such attract the protection of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.

• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Articles 59 and 63 concerning the right to legal assistance and the right not to incriminate oneself can be found in the judgment of 19 February 2009 in the case of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, § 25).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 6190/00

  R.D ./. Deutschland

  Die Art und Weise, in denen Artikel 6 Abs. 1 und Abs. 3 Buchstabe c während des Ermittlungsverfahrens angewandt werden, hängt von den Besonderheiten des Verfahrens und den Umständen der Rechtssache ab (siehe Imbrioscia ./. Schweiz , a.a.O., Rdnrn. 36-38, und Shabelnik ./. Ukraine , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 16404/03, Rdnr. 52, 19.

  Die Verteidigungsrechte werden grundsätzlich in nicht wieder gutzumachender Weise beeinträchtigt, wenn belastende Aussagen, die während der polizeilichen Vernehmung gemacht wurden, ohne dass Zugang zu einem Rechtsanwalt bestanden hätte, für eine Verurteilung herangezogen werden (siehe Salduz ./. Türkei [GK], a.a.O., Rdnr. 55, und Shabelnik ./. Ukraine , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 16404/03, Rdnr. 53, 19.

• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09

  DUMAN v. TURKEY

  Hence, whilst the applicant failed to provide any tangible evidence in support of his ill-treatment allegations during the preliminary investigation stage, the fact that most of the co-defendants also confessed to their crimes during the same period, and subsequently denied them, alleging coercion, raises a prima facie case, and thus reasonable doubts as to the reliability and accuracy of such evidence (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine, no. 16404/03, § 59, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 15685/11

  [ENG]

  The applicant complained of the unfairness of the proceedings in which the Supreme Court had upheld his conviction following the Court's judgment in his previous case, Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, 19 February 2009).

  On 2 April 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Court (no. 16404/03), alleging that his conviction for the murder of K. had been based on incriminating evidence that had been obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination and that he had been hindered in the effective exercise of his right to defence when questioned at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.11.2019 - C-659/18

  VW (Recht auf Zugang zu einem Rechtsbeistand bei Nichterscheinen vor Gericht) - …

  {FN:14} Vgl. insbesondere EGMR, Urteile vom 19. Februar 2009, Shabelnik/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2009:0219JUD001640403, § 57), und vom 18. Februar 2010, Zaichenko/Russland (CE:ECHR:2010:0218JUD003966002, § 42).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2376/03

  TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 33627/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 34515/04

  KULIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 47351/06

  TYMCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 37164/17

  EL KHALLOUFI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 45872/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 12793/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  SARANCHOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  ALEKSANDR SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 17416/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 16717/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 27004/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.09.2011 - 24652/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 39488/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33579/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 7817/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 22575/08

  KATRITSCH c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 17551/02

  OLEG KOLESNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 75702/13 (anhängig)

  LAUCHLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 27892/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 738/05

  GOLOTA v. UKRAINE