Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GENNADIY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance Free legal assistance) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  In that connection it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to "guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" and that assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he or she may afford an accused (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  As to Article 6 § 3 (c), the Court considered in Croissant v. Germany (25 September 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 237-B) that the right to free legal assistance is not absolute; such assistance is to be provided only if the accused "[does] not [have] sufficient means to pay".
• EGMR, 28.11.1978 - 6210/73

  Luedicke, Belkacem und Koç ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  The Court has considered in the context of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention that the term "free" has a clear and determinate meaning: "without payment, gratuitous", "not costing or charging anything, given or furnished without cost or payment" (see Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, 28 November 1978, § 40, Series A no. 29).

• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  In that connection it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to "guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" and that assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he or she may afford an accused (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  An accused's right to communicate with his lawyer without the risk of being overheard by a third party is one of the basic requirements of a fair trial in a democratic society and follows from Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 49, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court's task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirements of a fair trial (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, § 30, Series A no. 205).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

  MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  Subsequently, in Morris v. the United Kingdom (no. 38784/97, § 89, ECHR 2002-I) the Court found no violation of Article 6 in relation to an offer of legal aid which was subject to a contribution of GBP 240, bearing in mind the applicant's net salary levels at the time.
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03

  The Court has previously summarised its findings concerning the right to free legal assistance as follows (see Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, 21 June 2011):.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 13810/22

  KUCERA v. AUSTRIA

  The court held that the concerns regarding a potential violation of Article 6 of the Convention were unfounded and referred, in that connection, to a number of judgments of the Court (namely, Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 34653/04, §§ 27 and 32-33, 26 June 2012; Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 95 and 98, 2 November 2010; Gennadiy Medvedev v. Russia, no. 34184/03, §§ 37-38, 24 April 2012; and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 34344/10

  DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that in determining issues of fairness of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, it must consider the proceedings as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court (Gennadiy Medvedev v. Russia, no. 34184/03, § 27, 24 April 2012).