Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHRIEDER v. DENMARK

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 32085/96

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (cf. e.g. the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45 and the Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, § 28, to be published in the Court's official reports).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 32085/96

  The applicant complains further of the fact that he had to pay the fees of his appointed counsel, N. The Court recalls that a system whereby a convicted person is in principle bound to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the fees of his court-appointed counsel, is not incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, provided this does not adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings (cf. the Croissant v. Germany judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, pp. 34-35, §§ 33-38).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 32085/96

  It does not appear that the applicant challenged this in any way but even assuming that the applicant may be considered as having exhausted domestic remedies in this respect the Court recalls that the reading out at a hearing of the records of statements made by a witness cannot, in itself, be regarded as being inconsistent with Article 6 of the Convention but the use made of such statements as evidence must comply with the rights of the defence (cf. e.g. the Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p.14, § 31 and the Delta v. France judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, p.16, § 36).
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 32085/96

  It does not appear that the applicant challenged this in any way but even assuming that the applicant may be considered as having exhausted domestic remedies in this respect the Court recalls that the reading out at a hearing of the records of statements made by a witness cannot, in itself, be regarded as being inconsistent with Article 6 of the Convention but the use made of such statements as evidence must comply with the rights of the defence (cf. e.g. the Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p.14, § 31 and the Delta v. France judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, p.16, § 36).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 32085/96

  The task of the European Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in issue, considered as a whole, were fair as required by § 1 (see e.g. the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p.32, § 33).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 62390/00

  DMITRIJEVS contre la LETTONIE

  La question décisive à cet égard est celle de savoir si l'intéressé a vraiment bénéficié d'une assistance et d'une représentation juridique adéquates (voir l'arrêt Croissant c. Allemagne du 25 septembre 1992, série A no 237-B, pp. 34-35, §§ 33-38, ainsi que P.W. c. Danemark (déc.), no 38986/97, 15 juin 1999, et Schrieder c. Danemark (déc.), no 32085/96, 6 avril 2000, non publiées).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 15644/06

  GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  Counsel charged him a fee which cannot be regarded as excessive, and the applicant benefited from adequate representation - proved by the fact that he was eventually successful and obtained the quashing of the fines (see, mutatis mutandis, P.W. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 38986/97, 15 June 1999; Schrieder v. Denmark (dec.), no. 32085/96, 6 April 2000; Dmitrijevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 62390/00, 7 November 2002; and Ognyan Asenov v. Bulgaria, no. 38157/04, § 44, 17 February 2011).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  [ENG]

  In the present case, contrary to what the applicant seems to suggest, the question of costs did not adversely affect the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him (see P.W. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 38986/97, 15 June 1999; Schrieder v. Denmark (dec.), no. 32085/96, 6 April 2000; and Dmitrijevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 62390/00, 7 November 2002).