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)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• 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, 14.03.2000 - 47240/99

  EBBINGE contre le PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  In fact, the respondent State did not attempt to clarify the nature of those "talks" so as to dispel any doubts about their inappropriate character (compare Ebbinge v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47240/99, ECHR 2000-IV, concerning the use of a particular interrogation technique).
• EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).

 
• 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, 10.11.2005 - 54789/00

  BOCOS-CUESTA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  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, 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, 09.07.2009 - 6945/04

  ILATOVSKIY 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, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  PREZEC v. CROATIA

  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, 23.03.2010 - 15869/02

  CUDAK v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  See also my concurring opinion joined by Judges Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Zagrebelsky and Popovic in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010), as well as the concurring opinon of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  The latter's purpose is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 49859/99

  REZGUI contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38830/97

  Rechtssache C. gegen PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11

  DVORSKI v. CROATIA

  Les autorités nationales peuvent passer outre le souhait de l'accusé quant à sa représentation en justice si des raisons pertinentes et suffisantes font que l'intérêt de la justice l'exige (Croissant c. Allemagne, 25 septembre 1992, §§ 29-30, série A no 237-B, et Pavlenko c. Russie, no 42371/02, § 98, 1er avril 2010).

  Certes, malgré l'importance d'une relation de confiance entre l'avocat et son client, on ne saurait prêter au droit à celle-ci un caractère absolu, mais les autorités ne peuvent outrepasser les souhaits de l'accusé quant à sa représentation en justice que lorsqu'il y a des raisons pertinentes et suffisantes d'estimer que les intérêts de la justice l'exigent (Pavlenko c. Russie, no 42371/02, § 98, 1er avril 2010).

• EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

  This Court has consistently held that the national authorities must have regard to the defendant's wishes as to his or her choice of legal representation, but may override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Dvorksi, cited above, § 79; see also Meftah and Others v. France [GC], no. 32911/96 and two others, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 66, 20 January 2005; Klimentyev, cited above, § 116; Vitan v. Romania, no. 42084/02, § 59, 25 March 2008; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 98, 1 April 2010; Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, § 52, 24 November 2011; and Martin, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 30460/13

  A.T. c. LUXEMBOURG

  Dans la plupart des cas, cette vulnérabilité particulière ne peut être compensée de manière adéquate que par l'assistance d'un avocat, dont la tâche consiste notamment à contribuer au respect du droit de tout accusé de ne pas s'incriminer lui-même (Pavlenko c. Russie, no 42371/02, § 101, 1er avril 2010).

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Dans ces conditions, indépendamment de la question de savoir si le requérant a eu l'occasion de contester les preuves à charge lors de son procès, l'absence d'un avocat pendant sa garde à vue a irrémédiablement nui à ses droits de la défense (Salduz, précité, §§ 58 et 62, Panovits, précité, §§ 75-77 et 84-86, et Pavlenko c. Russie, no 42371/02, § 119, 1er avril 2010).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 42937/08

  JANYR c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  La défense appartenant pour l'essentiel à l'accusé et à son avocat, l'article 6 § 3 c) n'oblige les autorités nationales compétentes à intervenir que si la carence de l'avocat d'office apparaît manifeste ou si on les en informe suffisamment de quelque autre manière (Czekalla c. Portugal, no 38830/97, § 60, CEDH 2002-VIII ; Pavlenko c. Russie, no 42371/02, § 99, 1er avril 2010).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  In any event, it does not appear that she was detained at the courthouse in cramped conditions on many occasions and/or for prolonged periods of time (see, for comparison, Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, §§ 80 and 81, 1 April 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 101 and 102, 15 July 2010; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 117-120, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 55555/08

  LELAS v. CROATIA

  See also my concurring opinion in Pavlenko v. Russia (no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08

  RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

  At this point, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 82, ECHR 2015 and the references therein) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 116, 1 April 2010; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 13885/05

  SÜZER c. TURQUIE

  En d'autres termes, elle doit déterminer si l'assistance fournie par l'avocate commise d'office était de nature à assurer, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, le respect des garanties de l'article 6 de la Convention (Pavlenko c. Russie, no 42371/02, § 108, 1er avril 2010).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 41954/10

  ELIF NAZAN SEKER v. TURKEY

  The Court has consistently held that the national authorities must have regard to the defendant's wishes as to his or her choice of legal representation, but may override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (ibid., § 29; see also Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96 and 2 others, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 66, 20 January 2005; Klimentyev v. Russia, no. 46503/99, § 116, 16 November 2006; Vitan v. Romania, no. 42084/02, § 59, 25 March 2008; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 98, 1 April 2010; Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, § 52, 24 November 2011; and Martin, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 19181/09

  SÎRGHI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05

  ALEKSANDR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17588/08

  VOGIATZIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 21123/09 (anhängig)

  VITRIGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 44719/10

  GILANOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 56280/07

  TAU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 21056/11

  NORKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 30478/08 (anhängig)

  ZULKARNAYEV v. RUSSIA