Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EBANKS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Furthermore, rules on admissibility of evidence were primarily a matter for regulation under national law (referring to Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  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, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 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, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Nevertheless, assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).

• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 27, Series A no. 76; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Relying on Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29-31, Series A no. 269; and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, the Government contended that there was no basis for the Court to proceed to make a new assessment of the facts as found by the domestic courts as their conclusions were neither arbitrary nor unfair.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Relying on Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29-31, Series A no. 269; and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, the Government contended that there was no basis for the Court to proceed to make a new assessment of the facts as found by the domestic courts as their conclusions were neither arbitrary nor unfair.
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  Similarly, the decision as to whether in a particular case it is appropriate to call witnesses to testify is one for the domestic courts (see Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 27, Series A no. 76; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007).
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 27, Series A no. 76; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  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, 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 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, 19.05.2009 - 18353/03

  KULIKOWSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  TUZINSKI v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BGH, 05.03.2020 - StB 6/20

  Sofortige Beschwerde des Pflichtverteidigers gegen die Ablehnung der von ihm …

  (2) Soweit die Beschwerdeführer geltend machen, der Angeklagte habe die Entscheidung, sich in Abkehr der bisherigen Verteidigungsstrategie geständig einzulassen, allein getroffen und hierzu ihre Beratung abgelehnt, ist - wie das Oberlandesgericht in dem angefochtenen Beschluss zu Recht ausgeführt hat - zunächst zu berücksichtigen, dass ein Angeklagter nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte in Ausübung seines Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1, Abs. 3 Buchst. c EMRK maßgeblich auf seine Verteidigungsstrategie einwirken können muss und ihm - grundsätzlich beraten durch seine Verteidiger - insoweit die letzte Entscheidungskompetenz zusteht (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 26. Januar 2010 - 36822/06, Ebanks v. UK, Rn. 82; zustimmend Lam/Meyer-Mews, NJW 2012, 177, 179).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  [ENG]

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 27, Series A no. 76; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007; and Ebanks v. the United Kingdom, no. 36822/06, §§ 71-73, 26 January 2010).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

  In many cases several options will be available and it is the responsibility of the accused to select, with the advice of counsel, the defence which he wishes to put before the court (see Ebanks v. the United Kingdom, no. 36822/06, § 82, 26 January 2010).

• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 2870/11

  VAMVAKAS c. GRÈCE

  36822/06, παράγραφ&omikron;ι 73, 26 Ιαν&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2010).}}.
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 15499/10

  BEGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  This conclusion does not appear to be manifestly unreasonable or in any other way arbitrary, and this Court therefore sees no reason to conclude differently (see Ebanks v. the United Kingdom, no. 36822/06, § 74, 26 January 2010).
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  ROBERTS AND ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court considers that the decision whether to proceed with a challenge to the judge's alleged partiality and request his recusal was a tactical one (see, mutatis mutandis, Ebanks v. the United Kingdom, no. 36822/06, § 82, 26 January 2010), taken by the applicants after advice from experienced counsel.
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 5450/02

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, as it has held on numerous occasions, it follows from the independence of the legal profession that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed (see, among others Ebanks v. the United Kingdom, no. 36822/06, § 72, 26 January 2010).