Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARANCHOV v. UKRAINE

  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;Free legal assistance) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SARANCHOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05

  NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  It cannot be said, therefore, that the applicant's waiver of his right to legal assistance was made in full awareness of its legal consequences (contrast Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, § 92, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  The applicant's confession was not the central platform of the prosecution's case (see, by contrast, Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 45, ECHR 2000-VI), and the trial court interpreted his statement in the light of a complex body of evidence assessed by the court (compare Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 29486/95

  MAMAC ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  Against this background, and in view of the principle that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, § 51, 24 November 2011) and the requirement to evaluate the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011), I find that it has not been shown that the applicant's defence rights were irretrievably prejudiced or that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 was adversely affected (see, mutatis mutandis, Mamaç and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29486/95, 29487/95 and 29853/96, § 48, 20 April 2004, and Sarikaya v. Turkey, no. 36115/97, § 67, 22 April 2004; see also, by contrast, Martin, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 28135/95

  MAGEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  The applicant's confession was not the central platform of the prosecution's case (see, by contrast, Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 45, ECHR 2000-VI), and the trial court interpreted his statement in the light of a complex body of evidence assessed by the court (compare Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 22.04.2004 - 36115/97

  SARIKAYA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  Against this background, and in view of the principle that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, § 51, 24 November 2011) and the requirement to evaluate the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011), I find that it has not been shown that the applicant's defence rights were irretrievably prejudiced or that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 was adversely affected (see, mutatis mutandis, Mamaç and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29486/95, 29487/95 and 29853/96, § 48, 20 April 2004, and Sarikaya v. Turkey, no. 36115/97, § 67, 22 April 2004; see also, by contrast, Martin, cited above).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  In particular, for a waiver to be effective it must be shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 173, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  In particular, the calculation of the sentence in the applicant's case involved the issue of the application of sentencing rules in an international context, the full comprehension of which undoubtedly required a lawyer's professional training (see, mutatis mutandis, Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, § 34, Series A no. 205).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  In so doing, the Court must consider the proceedings as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 06.07.1999 - 30550/96

  O'KANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06

  In such circumstances it would be difficult for me to conclude that the proceedings against the applicant were unfair (compare O'Kane v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30550/96, 6 July 1999), since all the applicant's rights were adequately secured during the trial and his confession was not the sole, let alone the decisive, evidence in the case and as such did not call into question his conviction and sentence (compare Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 187, ECHR 2010, and, by contrast, Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, §§ 95-96, 30 May 2013).

• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 10644/17

  HAMDANI c. SUISSE

  La présente affaire se distingue ainsi de celles dans lesquelles la Cour a conclu à une violation de l'article 6 § 3 c) à raison du défaut d'assistance par un avocat qui résultait du refus d'octroi de l'aide juridictionnelle aux requérants (Quaranta, précité, Pham Hoang, précité, § 39, Talat Tunç c. Turquie, no 32432/96, § 62, 27 mars 2007, Zdravko Stanev c. Bulgarie, no 32238/04, § 40, 6 novembre 2012, Saranchov c. Ukraine, no 2308/06, § 59, 9 juin 2016, et aussi Beuze, précité, §§ 193-195).