Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,63374
EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02 (https://dejure.org/2010,63374)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.04.2010 - 42371/02 (https://dejure.org/2010,63374)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. April 2010 - 42371/02 (https://dejure.org/2010,63374)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63374) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (55)Zitiert selbst (34)

  • EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 48539/99

    Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Umgehungsschutz; Schweigerecht; materieller / …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    The Court reiterates that the running of the six-month time-limit for the complaints not included in the initial application is not interrupted until the date when the complaint is first submitted to the Court (see Majski v. Croatia, no. 33593/03, § 33, 1 June 2006, citing Allan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48539/99, 28 August 2001).

    Indeed, where the reliability of evidence is in dispute the existence of fair procedures to examine the admissibility of the evidence takes on an even greater importance (see Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, § 47, ECHR 2002-IX).

  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    The Court reiterates that a person charged with a criminal offence who does not wish to defend himself in person must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of one's own choosing (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 99, Series A no. 80, and Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, § 31, Series A no. 64).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    Their aim is to provide an accused person with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities and thus to avoid miscarriages of justice and secure the aims of Article 6 (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 92, with further references).
  • EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

    Klaus Croissant

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    The national court may override the defendant's wish relating to legal representation when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, §§ 29 and 30, Series A no. 237-B).
  • EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    The applicant made his intention to be assisted by counsel sufficiently clear to make it imperative for the investigating authorities to give him the benefit of legal assistance, unless there existed compelling reasons justifying the denial to the applicant of access to a lawyer (see Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, § 66, 11 December 2008, and Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 73, 24 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

    Pakelli ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    The Court reiterates that a person charged with a criminal offence who does not wish to defend himself in person must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of one's own choosing (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 99, Series A no. 80, and Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, § 31, Series A no. 64).
  • EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38830/97

    Rechtssache C. gegen PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    Assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance this counsel may provide to his client (see Czekalla v. Portugal, no. 38830/97, § 60, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    Article 6 § 1 of the Convention requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008; see also Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 29-34, 13 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    [1] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

    SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
    As regards the findings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an 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 the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands, no. 54789/00, § 82, 10 November 2005).
  • EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 15869/02

    Cudak v. Lithuania

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

    BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

    JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

    OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

    KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 54789/00

    BOCOS-CUESTA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 6945/04

    ILATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 33593/03

    MAJSKI v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 47240/99

    EBBINGE contre le PAYS-BAS

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

    ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 49859/99

    REZGUI contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 15413/03

    ZENIN v. RUSSIA

  • EKMR, 07.05.1985 - 10626/83

    KELLY v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 77116/01

    BAYBORA and OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    Even though the prosecutors" control undeniably plays an important part in securing appropriate conditions of detention, a complaint to the supervising prosecutor falls short of the requirements of an effective remedy because of the procedural shortcomings that have been previously identified in the Court's case-law (see, for instance, Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, §§ 88-89, 1 April 2010; Aleksandr Makarov, § 86, and Benediktov, § 29, both cited above).

    Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010 (IZ-22/1, Barnaul, 2002).

  • EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11

    DVORSKI v. CROATIA

    The national authorities may override the defendant's wish relating to legal representation when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, §§ 29 and 30, Series A no. 237-B, and Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 98, 1 April 2010).

    It is true that notwithstanding the importance of a relationship of confidence between lawyer and client, this right cannot be considered to be absolute, but the national authorities may override the defendant's wish relating to legal representation only when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 98, 1 April 2010).

  • EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

    [ENG]

    It should ensure that it is possible to ascertain the facts of a case before that possibility fades away, making a fair examination of the question in issue next to impossible (see Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 69, 1 April 2010).

    It should ensure that it is possible to ascertain the facts of a case before that possibility fades away, making a fair examination of the question in issue next to impossible (see Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 69, 1 April 2010).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht