Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BANDALETOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No 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 - Rights of defence Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bandaletov v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  There is no indication that the authorities had any reason for suspecting the applicant's involvement in the murder before his first communication with the police (see, for a comparable example in the case-law, Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 54, 19 January 2012; and, for converse examples, Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, no. 25303/08, § 51, 27 October 2011, Khayrov v. Ukraine, no. 19157/06, § 74, 15 November 2012, and Zamferesko v. Ukraine, no. 30075/06, § 61, 15 November 2012); the investigation had begun that very morning, and the police as yet had no evidence of any kind against the applicant.
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 19157/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  There is no indication that the authorities had any reason for suspecting the applicant's involvement in the murder before his first communication with the police (see, for a comparable example in the case-law, Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 54, 19 January 2012; and, for converse examples, Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, no. 25303/08, § 51, 27 October 2011, Khayrov v. Ukraine, no. 19157/06, § 74, 15 November 2012, and Zamferesko v. Ukraine, no. 30075/06, § 61, 15 November 2012); the investigation had begun that very morning, and the police as yet had no evidence of any kind against the applicant.
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 30075/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  There is no indication that the authorities had any reason for suspecting the applicant's involvement in the murder before his first communication with the police (see, for a comparable example in the case-law, Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 54, 19 January 2012; and, for converse examples, Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, no. 25303/08, § 51, 27 October 2011, Khayrov v. Ukraine, no. 19157/06, § 74, 15 November 2012, and Zamferesko v. Ukraine, no. 30075/06, § 61, 15 November 2012); the investigation had begun that very morning, and the police as yet had no evidence of any kind against the applicant.

• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 48057/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  There also appears to have been nothing in the statements taken by the police from various interviewees that day which could cast suspicion on him (contrast Sergey Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 48057/06, § 58, 15 November 2012).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  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 Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  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 Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  In addition, the Court's primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 37, Series A no. 275, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X, Balliu v. Albania, no. 74727/01, § 25, 16 June 2005, and Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, § 94, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  In addition, the Court's primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 37, Series A no. 275, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X, Balliu v. Albania, no. 74727/01, § 25, 16 June 2005, and Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, § 94, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  The Court has considered that in most cases this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer, whose tasks are multifaceted: to ensure respect of the right of an accused not to incriminate himself, and to secure without restriction the fundamental aspects of that person's defence by, in particular, discussion of the case, organisation of the defence, collection of evidence favourable to the accused, preparation for questioning, and support of the accused when in distress (see Salduz, cited above, § 54, and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 32, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

  BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 23180/06

  In addition, the Court's primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 37, Series A no. 275, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X, Balliu v. Albania, no. 74727/01, § 25, 16 June 2005, and Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, § 94, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 22313/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 1466/07

  BRUSCO CONTRE LA FRANCE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 27582/07

  ÇELEBI v. TURKEY

  Therefore, the present case does not concern the question whether the applicant's acceptance of his previous statements with the hope that he would receive a reduction in his sentence, and maintenance of that position until the end of the trial, was sufficient in itself to remedy the prejudice caused by the statutory restriction of his right to a lawyer to the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against him (see Bandaletov v. Ukraine, no. 23180/06, § 69, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 50541/08
  The Court's primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275; Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 84, 16 November 2010; and Bandaletov v. Ukraine, no. 23180/06, § 54, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 36259/04

  [FRE]

  Dès lors, les informations transmises au requérant même implicitement ont eu des « répercussions importantes'sur sa situation, de sorte que, au moment où les enquêteurs l'ont interrogé, le volet pénal de l'article 6 de la Convention était applicable dans son cas (O'Halloran et Francis c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos15809/02 et 25624/02, § 35, CEDH 2007-III et voir, mutatis mutandis, Bandaletov c. Ukraine, no 23180/06, § 56, 31 octobre 2013 et Brusco c. France, no 1466/07, § 47, 14 octobre 2010).

• EGMR, 29.11.2018 - 4442/07

  GRABOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, the applicant never retracted that initial account (compare Bandaletov v. Ukraine, no. 23180/06, § 67, 31 October 2013), but maintained it throughout the proceedings (compare Zherdev v. Ukraine, no. 34015/07, § 167, 27 April 2017).
• EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 31559/12

  THILL c. BELGIQUE et 1 autre affaire

  Au contraire, il ressort du dossier soumis devant la Cour que les requérants ont confirmé leurs déclarations auto-incriminantes par la suite, au moment où ils bénéficiaient des conseils d'un avocat, que ce soit lors de la détention préventive ou devant les juridictions internes (paragraphes 7-8 ci-dessus, et voir, dans le même sens, Bandaletov c. Ukraine, no 23180/06, § 67, 31 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 10917/15

  SASSI c. FRANCE et 1 autre affaire

  L'analyse contenue dans l'arrêt ne permet pas de prendre en compte ces éléments clés, notamment les réalités de la situation des requérants en tant que détenus soupçonnés de terrorisme au moment où ils ont été interrogés (voir, mutatis mutandis, Brusco c. France, no 1466/07, § 47, 14 octobre 2010, et Bandaletov c. Ukraine, no 23180/06, § 56, 31 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 26892/12

  WANNER v. GERMANY

  26.Das deckt sich mit der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs, wonach eine Person den Status eines Verdächtigen (der die Anwendung der Schutzvorkehrungen aus Artikel 6 nach sich zieht) nicht dann erreicht, wenn ihr dieser förmlich zugewiesen wird, sondern wenn die innerstaatlichen Behörden plausible Gründe für den Verdacht haben, dass die Person an einer Straftat beteiligt war (siehe Bandaletov./. Ukraine, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23180/06, Rdnr. 56, 31. Oktober 2013, und Sobko./. Ukraine, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 15102/10, Rdnr. 53, 17. Dezember 2015, jeweils in Anwendung der in der Rechtssache Brusco./. Frankreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 1466/07, Rdnr. 47, 14.
• EGMR, 17.12.2015 - 15102/10

  SOBKO v. UKRAINE

  Looking beyond the appearances and formal domestic classifications of the applicant's procedural statuses, the Court considers that at least since the evening of 3 October 2008 the applicant was de facto treated as a suspect in the murder case and was therefore entitled to have access to a lawyer (see, for comparable examples in the case-law, Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, no. 25303/08, § 51, 27 October 2011; Khayrov v. Ukraine, no. 19157/06, § 74, 15 November 2012; and Zamferesko v. Ukraine, no. 30075/06, § 61, 15 November 2012; and, for converse examples, Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 54, 19 January 2012, and Bandaletov v. Ukraine, no. 23180/06, §§ 59 and 60, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  RUSISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Although he was formally arrested and charged only on 19 October 2011 at 1.35 a.m., given, on the one hand, the reasons that led the police to his apartment and the immediate discovery of possible evidence there (see paragraphs 5-6 above), and, on the other hand, the fact that he was then taken by the police to the police station (see ibid.), the Court considers that 8 p.m. on 18 October 2011 at the latest was the point from which the applicant's situation was substantially affected by the actions taken by the authorities as a result of a suspicion against him (see Simeonovi, cited above, § 110; contrast Bandaletov v. Ukraine, no. 23180/06, § 62, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 18041/08

  TRUTEN v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that in Bandaletov v. Ukraine (no. 23180/06, § 67, 31 October 2013) which concerned lack of access to a lawyer at the early stages of criminal proceedings, no violation of Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c) of the Convention was found having regard, inter alia, to the fact that when being legally represented the applicant maintained the statements which he had earlier made in the absence of a lawyer.
• EGMR - 12860/24 (anhängig)

  ABULASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2025 - 46673/18

  OPALENKO v. UKRAINE