Case Law

The Case Law database provides access to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments, decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports), the Committee of Ministers (resolutions), and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Access to a Lawyer (Measure C1) (79 Entries)

Displaying 1-10 of (79)


CASE DATE:
Thursday, 15 Oct 2015
STATE:
Azerbaijan
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3 - Rights of defence Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities Adequate time Preparation of defence Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1) Lawful arrest or detention (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3) Rights of defence (Art. 6-3-B) Adequate facilities (Art. 6-3-B) Adequate time (Art. 6-3-b) Preparation of defence (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that the dispersal of the demonstration in which he had participated and his arrest and conviction had violated his right to freedom of peaceful assembly. He further complained that the administrative proceedings against him had fallen short of guarantees of a fair hearing, and that his arrest and conviction had been contrary to guarantees of the right to liberty.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 6.1, 6.3, 11.1

CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 14 Oct 2015
STATE:
Luxembourg
OUTCOME:
Partially inadmissible Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial, Article 6-3-c - Right to defend oneself with a lawyer of one's own chooosing) (Article 6-3-c - Right to defend oneself with a lawyer of one's own choosing, Article 6 - Right to a fair trial) Pecuniary damage - demand rejected
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general}


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained of a lawyer at his hearing before the police on 17 December 2009, and the absence of effective assistance of counsel before the investigating judge on December 18, 2009. He criticized the judgment of the Court of Appeal endorsed by the Court of Cassation not having remedied the damage caused to his defense rights. Makes explicit reference to the Directive on the right to information.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c, 35, 41

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 6 Oct 2015
STATE:
Russia
OUTCOME:
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment, Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance, Article 6 - Right to a fair trial) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage, Just satisfaction)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture (Art. 3) Degrading treatment (Art. 3) Effective investigation (Art. 3) Inhuman treatment (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general} (Art. 41) Just satisfaction (Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment in police custody in order to obtain his confession to a crime. He further submitted that the use of his confession, made as a result of his ill‑treatment and in the absence of a lawyer, in securing his conviction had rendered his trial unfair.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c, 35, 41

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 30 Jul 2015
STATE:
Russia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition on torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural component) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition on torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment, Inhuman treatment) (Procedural component) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition on torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment, Inhuman treatment) (Material component) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial) Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Right to defence with the assistance of a lawyer) (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Right to a fair trial, Article 6-1 - Fair trial)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture (Art. 3) Degrading treatment (Art. 3) Effective investigation (Art. 3) Inhuman treatment (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant maintains that he was denied a fair trial because of the admission by the domestic courts of statements obtained from him through ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer while in police custody.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 6, 6+6-1, 6-1, 6-3-c

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 30 Jul 2015
STATE:
Ukraine
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court, instead of referring the case to a trial court for fresh consideration, had reassessed the facts and evidence in his case, despite having no jurisdiction to do so. The applicant further complained under the same provision that his right to remain silent and his right to defence had been violated anew, given that the Supreme Court had excluded part of the evidence obtained in breach of these rights but had relied on other pieces of evidence obtained in the same manner. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 3 (a-d) that the retrial had been conducted in his absence, that he had had no adequate facilities to prepare his defence as he had not been informed of the evidence on which the prosecution had intended to rely if his initial confessions had been excluded, and that the exclusion of some of the evidence from his case had changed the situation to the extent that it had required the witnesses to be re-questioned, but this had not been done.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 28 Jul 2015
STATE:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1, Reasonable time limit) Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Right to defend oneself with the assistance of a lawyer) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial, criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-1) Reasonable time (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained that the length of pre-trial detention to which he had been subjected was excessive. He also complained that he was convicted on the basis of evidence collected during detention following his initial arrest, when he was maltreated and did not have access to a lawyer.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5, 5-3, 6, 6+6-1, 6-1, 6-3-c

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 28 Jul 2015
STATE:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Right to defend oneself with the assistance of a lawyer of one's own choosing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial, Criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-1) Reasonable time (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained of a lack of fairness of the procedure: he maintains that he was convicted on the basis of his evidence given in custody, collected by him following maltreatment and in the absence of a lawyer.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5, 5-3, 6, 6+6-1, 6-1, 6-3-c

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 21 Jul 2015
STATE:
Slovakia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial, Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance


  • DETAIL:

    The applicants complained that they had not been informed in due time of the true nature of the charge against them. There had been no relevant grounds for initially classifying the charge against them as an ordinary criminal offence for which legal assistance was not mandatory, and then reclassifying it as a particularly serious criminal offence, for which it was. At the initial stages of the proceedings they had not been properly informed of their procedural rights. Their pre-trial statements and those of the five witnesses against them, as well as the search report of 7 November 2009, should have been excluded from evidence. By obscuring the true nature of the charge against them at the beginning of the proceedings, the authorities had deprived them of their right adequately to mount their defence. Lastly, they complained that their conviction had been arbitrary.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 16 Jul 2015
STATE:
Russia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial, Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance



CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 14 Jul 2015
STATE:
Greece
OUTCOME:
Partially inadmissible Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial, Article 6-3-c - Right to defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer of one's choosing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial, Article 6-3-c - Free assistance of an appointed lawyer) Pecuniary damage - reparation (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage, Just satisfaction)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance (Art. 6-3-C) Free legal assistance (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general} (Art. 41) Just satisfaction (Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage Positive obligations


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged that he was denied effective legal assistance in the context of an appeal in the Court of Cassation, because the lawyer who had been officially appointed by the Court of Cassation would not have submitted to the hearing, which would have resulted in the rejection of his appeal.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c, 35, 41

Page 1 of 8 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

JUSTICIA European Rights Network