Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGLIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Iglin v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the opportunity to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53; Connolly v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27245/95, 26 June 1996; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 78, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  Inasmuch as the applicant's claim relates to the finding of that violation, the Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168, and Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II).
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  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, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Julija Tymoschenko

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006; Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 46, 20 May 2010; and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 52, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  The issue of adequacy of time and facilities afforded to an accused must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of each particular case (see Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 65, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  MOROZ v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already found in a number of similar cases lodged against Ukraine that no effective domestic remedies in respect of complaints concerning poor conditions of detention were available (see, among other authorities, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 113-16, 28 March 2006; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, §§ 91-92, 18 December 2008; and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 77, 12 January 2012).

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 2870/11

  VAMVAKAS c. GRÈCE (N° 2)

  Adopter l'interprétation restrictive avancée par le Gouvernement conduirait à des résultats déraisonnables incompatibles avec le libellé de l'alinéa c) et l'assistance judiciaire gratuite risquerait de se révéler un vain mot (Artico c. Italie, 13 mai 1980, § 33, série A no 37 ; Kemal Kahraman et Ali Kahraman c. Turquie, no 42104/02, § 35, 26 avril 2007, et Iglin c. Ukraine, no 39908/05, § 67, 12 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 16870/03

  VIKULOV AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  While mindful of the objective difficulties of detained persons in substantiating their complaints concerning conditions of detention, the Court has consistently held that they are nevertheless required to submit a credible and reasonably detailed description of the facts (see Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 90, 17 January 2012) which is consistent and, as far as possible, supported by evidence (see, among other authorities, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 108, ECHR 2006-XV, and, more recently, Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 53, 12 January 2012), whereas failure by the Government to provide information in their possession capable of corroborating or refuting such allegations may give rise to the drawing of interferences as to the well-founded character of the applicant's complaints (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 254, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 71585/17

  MARTINEZ ALMAGRO v. SPAIN

  The question of adequacy of time and facilities afforded to an accused cannot be addressed in abstracto, but only in relation to the circumstances of the case (see Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 65, 12 January 2012).