Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. ... 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 1 Buchst. b MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-e Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1+6-1-b and 6-3-c Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 32771/96
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96

Wird zitiert von ... (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 59868/08

  VIZGIRDA c. SLOVÉNIE

  Noting that there had been no evidence in the file indicating that the applicant had had sufficient knowledge of Italian, the Court found a violation of Article 6. Similarly, in Cuscani v. the United Kingdom (no. 32771/96, § 38, 24 September 2002), the Court considered that after the authorities had been put on notice of the applicant's inability to understand the proceedings, the verification of his need for interpretation facilities had become a matter for the judge to determine.

  In Cuscani v. the United Kingdom (no. 32771/96, 24 September 2002), the Court found that the domestic court had been put on clear notice that the applicant had problems of comprehension.

• EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 76577/13

  Italien verurteilt: 18.000 Euro Entschädigung für Amanda Knox

  L'obligation des autorités compétentes ne se limite donc pas à désigner un interprète: il leur incombe en outre, une fois alertées dans un cas donné, d'exercer un certain contrôle ultérieur de la valeur de l'interprétation assurée (Hermi c. Italie [GC], no 18114/02, § 80, CEDH 2006-XII, Kamasinski c. Autriche, 19 décembre 1989, § 74, série A no 168, Güngör c. Allemagne (déc.), no 31540/96, 17 mai 2001, Cuscani c. Royaume-Uni, no 32771/96, § 39, 24 septembre 2002, Protopapa c. Turquie, no 16084/90, § 80, 24 février 2009 et Vizgirda c. Slovénie, no 59868/08, §§ 75-79, 28 août 2018).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19

  FEILAZOO v. MALTA

  Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 30 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).

• EGMR, 01.09.2026 - 26602/25
  Rn. 57 Regarding the applicants' complaint that they had not been given adequate time and opportunity to find a lawyer of choice, and that the appointment of the legal aid lawyers had not been according to law, the Court considers that, in the present case, the guilty plea filed by the applicants has no bearing, a priori, on the assessment of this complaint (compare Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, §§ 34-40, 24 September 2002, in respect of a complaint of a lack of interpretation as a result of which the applicant could not appreciate the consequences of his guilty plea).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 58478/00

  RUPA c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)

  De l'indépendance du barreau par rapport à l'État, il découle que la conduite de la défense appartient pour l'essentiel à l'accusé et à son avocat, commis au titre de l'aide judiciaire ou rétribué par son client (Cuscani c. Royaume-Uni, no 32771/96, § 39, 24 septembre 2002).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  [ENG]

  Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  In other situations, in view of the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether that counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or be privately financed (see Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002, and Iglin, ibid.).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  In other situations, regard being had to the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether that lawyer is appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed (see Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002, and Iglin v. Ukraine, ibid.).
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  [ENG]

  Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or be privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 36; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02

  CAKA v. ALBANIA

  The applicant at no point alerted the authorities to any difficulties encountered in preparing his defence and there is nothing to indicate that the trial court should have addressed itself to the applicant's situation of its own motion as the ultimate guardian of the fairness of the proceedings (see Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 35185/03

  RAYKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 40631/02

  TIMERGALIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

  ANTONICELLI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 45060/10

  CHOPRA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00

  CHADWICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 60802/09

  FAIG MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04

  KONONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  ARCINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR - 1877/25 (anhängig)

  PIDHAINYI v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 4238/03

  MIHAI MOLDOVEANU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 25720/02

  AMER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 34491/12

  BUTTIGIEG AND OTHERS v. MALTA