Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,67951
EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,67951)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.09.2009 - 7025/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,67951)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. September 2009 - 7025/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,67951)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,67951) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
 
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 ... (51)Zitiert selbst (25)

  • EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    The Court therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached by the manner in which counsel, Ms Ya. had rendered legal assistance to the applicant and because the applicant had not been assisted by counsel during the appeal proceedings (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002 and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 107, 24 July 2008).

    Given its importance, I would have liked this reasoning set out in paragraph 99 of the judgment to have been included in the operative provisions as well, for the reasons explained in detail in the joint concurring opinion in the case of Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008).

  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A).

    The Court further reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).

  • EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

    QUARANTA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    The applicant, citing the Court's judgment in the case of Quaranta v. Switzerland (24 May 1991, §§ 32-34, Series A no. 205), submitted that the domestic authorities had been under an obligation to provide him with free legal aid from the very start of the criminal proceedings.

    The Court further reiterates that the compliance with the requirements of fair trial must be examined in each case having regard to the development of the proceedings as a whole and not on the basis of the isolated consideration of one particular aspect or one particular incident (see, among other authorities, Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 201, 9 October 2008), although it cannot be ruled out that a specific factor may be so decisive as to enable the fairness of the trial to be assessed at an earlier stage in the proceedings (see, inter alia, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 91, Series A no. 22; Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, 28 November 1978, § 48, Series A no. 29; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, §§ 95-99, Series A no. 80; Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 37, Series A no. 151; Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 36, Series A no. 191-A; Quaranta v. Switzerland, cited above, §§ 28 and 36, Series A no. 205; and S. v. Switzerland, 28 November 1991, §§ 46-51).

  • EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

    FUNKE v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    In this connection, the Court also reiterates that the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6 (see John Murray, cited above, § 45, and Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 44, Series A no. 256-A).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 31827/96

    Verstoß gegen die Grundsätze des fairen Verfahrens wegen des Zwangs der Vorlegung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see, inter alia, Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, § 68, Reports 1996-VI; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-XII; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97

    HEANEY ET McGUINNESS c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see, inter alia, Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, § 68, Reports 1996-VI; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-XII; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

    IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    Thus, Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    The Court firstly notes that in the present case it has found a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. 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 or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

    KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    In this respect the Court reiterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000).
  • EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

    JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, 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, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

    BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 36408/97

    AVERILL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 68020/01

    DEMEBUKOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 32106/96

    KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83
  • EGMR, 28.11.1978 - 6210/73

    Luedicke, Belkacem und Koç ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

    DELTA c. FRANCE

  • KAGH, 05.07.2013 - K 24/12
  • EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81
  • EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

    KUSMIEREK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 04.03.2004 - 72159/01
  • EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 4459/03

    SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 76835/01

    KOLOMIYETS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08

    Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …

    In their view, this bright-line rule had been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Court, including in terrorism cases (citing, inter alia, P?onka v. Poland, no. 20310/02, 31 March 2009; Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, 24 September 2009; and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, 13 October 2009).

    Irretrievable means that there can be no remedy to it (see, inter alia, P?onka v. Poland, no. 20310/02, 31 March 2009; Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, 24 September 2009; and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, 13 October 2009).

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.05.2021 - C-791/19

    Generalanwalt Tanchev: Der Gerichtshof sollte urteilen, dass das polnische Gesetz …

    {FN:25} Die Kommission bezieht sich auf das Urteil vom 24. September 2009, Pishchalnikov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2009:0924JUD000702504).
  • EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08

    RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

    As to the applicant's conduct, the Court reiterates its well-established case-law to the effect that an applicant cannot be criticised for having made full use of the remedies available under domestic law in the defence of his interests (see Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 50, 24 September 2009, and Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66) unless and in so far as they are solely aimed at the deliberate obstruction of the proceedings.

    In that connection, the Court attaches decisive importance to the fact that the applicant stated to the public prosecutor that although he had asked the police to provide him with a lawyer, they had rejected that request, asserting that his lawyer had not wished to come (see Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 72 in fine, 24 September 2009, and compare Simeonovi, cited above, § 123).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht