Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARCINSKI v. POLAND

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  TUZINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  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, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  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, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97

  ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  Given the special nature of the court of cassation's role, which is limited to reviewing whether the law has been correctly applied, the Court is able to accept that the procedure followed in such courts may be more formal (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-VII; Staroszczyk, cited above, § 125; and Sialkowska, cited above, § 104).

 
• EGMR, 18.12.2001 - 29692/96

  R.D. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  In discharging its obligation to provide parties to criminal proceedings with legal aid, when this is provided for by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001).
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96

  CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  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, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; 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, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  Nevertheless, assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  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, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, p. 11, § 27; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk, cited above, §§ 121-122; and Sialkowska, cited above, §§ 99-100).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  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, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  A restrictive interpretation of that right would not be consonant with the object and purpose of this provision (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, § 30).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  The Court further emphasises the importance of the right of access to a court, having regard to the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12-13, § 24).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

  ZAPADKA v. POLAND

  In discharging its obligation to provide parties to proceedings with legal aid when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II; Staroszczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 130, Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, § 107, Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, § 4, 28 July 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, § 34, 15 September 2009 and R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001, mutatis mutandis).

  As was emphasised in my previous concurring opinions in three recent cases (Kulikowski v. Poland, no18353/03, 18 August 2009, Antonicelli v. Poland, no2815/05, 18 August 2009 and Arcinski v. Poland, 41373/04, 15 September 2009), as well as in the joint dissenting opinion in Smyk v. Poland, no8958/04, 28 July 2009, 1 see the problem of the refusal of lawyers appointed under a legal-aid scheme to represent legally-aided persons on the ground that the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, as the general one, related not only to criminal, but also to both civil and administrative proceedings[1].

• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02

  BAKOWSKA v. POLAND

  In discharging its obligation to provide parties to proceedings with legal aid when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II; Staroszczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 130, Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, § 107, Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, § 4, 28 July 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, § 34, 15 September 2009 and R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001, mutatis mutandis).

  [1]Kulikowski v. Poland, no18353/03, 18 August 2009, Antonicelli v. Poland, no2815/05, 18 August 2009, Arciÿski v. Poland, 41373/04, 15 September 2009 and Zapadka v. Poland, n°2615/05, 15 December 2009).

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10

  DOMBROWSKI v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 648/02

  JAN ZAWADZKI v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

  As was emphasised in my previous concurring opinions in three recent cases (Kulikowski v. Poland, no18353/03, 18 August 2009, Antonicelli v. Poland, no2815/05, 18 August 2009 and Arcinski v. Poland, 41373/04, 15 September 2009), as well as in the joint dissenting opinion in Smyk v. Poland, no8958/04, 28 July 2009, 1 see the problem of the refusal of lawyers appointed under a legal-aid scheme to represent legally-aided persons on the ground that the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, as the general one, related not only to criminal, but also to both civil and administrative proceedings[1].

• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34736/06

  ZEBROWSKI v. POLAND

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06

  SUBICKA v. POLAND

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010 and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  KOWALCZYK v. POLAND

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

  SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 Septembre 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011.
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 35916/08

  KORGUL v. POLAND

  The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 18063/07

  MIROSLAW WOJCIECHOWSKI v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 16286/07

  WLODARCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 17656/06

  SZPARAG v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 40459/05

  URBANOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53653/07

  WOLINSKI v. POLAND