Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
QUARANTA c. SUISSE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 6-3-c Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
QUARANTA v. SWITZERLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-3-c Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 06.07.1988 - 12744/87
- EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 205
Wird zitiert von ... (70) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87
The Court points out that the right of an accused to be given, in certain circumstances, free legal assistance constitutes one aspect of the notion of a fair trial in criminal proceedings (see the Artico judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 15, para. 32). - EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84
WEBER c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87
This defect was not cured either in the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Canton of Vaud, despite the presence of a lawyer paid by the applicant, or in the Federal Court, although he was accorded free legal assistance before that court, because of the limits on the scope of the review which may be carried out by those two courts (see, as the most recent authority, mutatis mutandis, the Weber judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 20, para. 39). - EGMR, 07.05.1974 - 1936/63
NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87
As regards non-pecuniary damage, they argued, on the basis of the Neumeister judgment of 7 May 1974 (Series A no. 17), that a pardon, without repairing all the consequences of a violation, played an important role in this connection so that a finding of a violation would in the present case constitute sufficient satisfaction.
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …
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 ( Quaranta v. Switzerland , judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 16, § 30). - EGMR, 01.03.2006 - 56581/00
SEJDOVIC c. ITALIE
Il laisse ainsi aux Etats contractants le choix des moyens propres à permettre à leur système judiciaire de le garantir ; la tâche de la Cour consiste à rechercher si la voie qu'ils ont empruntée cadre avec les exigences d'un procès équitable (Quaranta c. Suisse, 24 mai 1991, § 30, série A no 205). - EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
36; Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, pp.32-33, and the Quaranta judgment, cited above, Series A no. 205, p. 16, para.
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 the Quaranta judgment previously cited, Series A no. 205, p. 16, para. 30).
- EGMR, 12.03.2003 - 46221/99
Freiheit der Person (rechtmäßige Freiheitsentziehung; effektives …
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 ( Quaranta v. Switzerland , 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 16, § 30). - EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIA
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, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99
TOEVA v. BULGARIA
The Court observes that in the Convention system the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to free legal assistance is one element, amongst others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 16, § 27 and Pham Hoang v. France, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, p. 23, § 39).In answering this question, regard must be had to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 17-18, § 32-38).
In addition, once an individual risks a loss of liberty, the interests of justice in principle call for legal representation (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, § 61 and Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 17-18, § 33).
In its case-law, the Court has previously found that such a defect in the fairness of the proceeding can be cured if the applicant has the benefit of legal representation before the second or third instance courts, but only as long as there were no limits on the scope of the review which may be carried out by such courts (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, p. 16, § 37 and, mutatis mutandis, Weber v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 20, § 39).
- EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 18114/02
HERMI c. ITALIE
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, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09
LEKA v. ALBANIA
As to whether the interests of justice required that the applicant receive free legal assistance in the form of court-appointed counsel, the Court will have regard to the severity of the sanction which the applicant might incur, the complexity of the case and the personal situation of the applicant (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, § 33, Series A no. 205). - EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 45106/04
MARCELLO VIOLA c. ITALIE
Il laisse ainsi aux Etats contractants le choix des moyens propres à permettre à leur système judiciaire de le garantir ; la tâche de la Cour consiste à rechercher si la voie qu'ils ont empruntée cadre avec les exigences d'un procès équitable (Quaranta c. Suisse, arrêt du 24 mai 1991, série A no 205, p. 16, § 30). - EGMR, 10.06.1996 - 19380/92
BENHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Pour répondre à cette question, il échet de considérer la sévérité de la sanction dont le requérant risquait de se voir frapper et la complexité de la cause (arrêt Quaranta c. Suisse du 24 mai 1991, série A no 205, pp. 17-18, paras. 32-38). - EGMR, 28.10.1994 - 18711/91
BONER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 21272/03
SAKHNOVSKI c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 10644/17
HAMDANI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06
PREVITI c. ITALIE
- EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 31145/96
WILKINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08
MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87
PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 35555/03
CIUPERCESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 58478/00
RUPA c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)
- EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 20448/02
BEGU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.04.2006 - 30961/03
SANNINO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 32432/96
TALAT TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 32238/04
ZDRAVKO STANEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 14.01.2003 - 26891/95
LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 16065/09
PLESIC c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21272/03
SAKHNOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98
EZEH AND CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 46460/10
HENRI RIVIÈRE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05
IGLIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 6190/00
R.D ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 54784/00
PADALOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 53737/09
SFEZ c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02
CAKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 35185/03
RAYKOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 17543/05
HANY c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 77432/01
KÖMÜRCÜ contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 36203/97
TEMEL ET AUTRES contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 37364/05
JEMELJANOVS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06
SARANCHOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 11469/05
EDUARD ROZHKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 4238/03
MIHAI MOLDOVEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 25198/06
CRACIUN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 40962/04
NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16913/04
JELCOVAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02
SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 51176/99
ANYIG ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 68909/01
KARAKAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.09.2002 - 57217/00
BOER AUGSBURGER contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 65032/09
A.V. v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 49797/11
ROBERT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3891/03
SAMOKHVALOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 40768/06
GUNEY v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02
SYNNELIUS AND EDSBERGS TAXI AB v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 40766/06
BARSOM AND VARLI v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 11.12.2006 - 10404/02
KRAVETS c. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.09.2006 - 12648/06
BOOKER c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 41676/98
MEHMET ERTUGRUL YILMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 16943/02
DOLKAS c. GRECE (N° 7)
- EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 55478/00
ZAR MACHO contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 56659/00
DAGNICOURT contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 28.10.1994 - 18949/91
MAXWELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5217/06
MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 43183/06
GORBUNOV AND GORBACHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 34184/03
GENNADIY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 9742/07
KING v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 66976/01
HEDSTROM AXELSSON v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 35685/97
MILLS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY
- EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 13465/04
SABIROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 43550/98
MATO JARA contre l'ESPAGNE
- EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 26070/94
OSTHOFF v. LUXEMBOURG