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:
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
STATE:
Ukraine
OUTCOME:
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 - Right to a fair trial, Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
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 further complained that he had not had a fair trial on account of his self-incrimination under duress and in the absence of legal assistance. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)...


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

CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 29 Apr 2015
STATE:
Ukraine
OUTCOME:
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment, Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance, Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)
SUBJECT MATTER:

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


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been ill-treated by the police (Article 3 of the Convention), that he had not had access to a lawyer at the initial stage of the investigation (Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention), and that the courts had used evidence obtained through ill‑treatment to secure his conviction (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).


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

CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 29 Apr 2015
STATE:
Ukraine
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment, Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) 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. 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 complained that he had not been provided with access to a lawyer in the initial period of the criminal proceedings. The applicant relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention...


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

CASE DATE:
Friday, 13 Feb 2015
STATE:
Romania
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention, Article 5-1-b - Lawful order of a court) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty, Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial, Article 6-3-c - Defence in person) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1) Deprivation of liberty (Art. 5-1) Lawful arrest or detention (Art. 5-1-b) Lawful order of a court (Art. 5-1-e) Persons of unsound mind (Art. 5-4) Speediness of review (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Civil proceedings (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-1) Reasonable time (Art. 6-3-C) Defence in person (Art. 8) Right to respect for private and family life (Art. 8-1) Respect for private life


  • DETAIL:

    II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 73. The applicant complained of the unlawfulness of her deprivation of liberty on 28 May 2003 when she was held at the prosecutor’s office from 9.30 a.m. until sometime in the afternoon and later confined to a psychiatric hospital, where she was held until 5 June 2003. She relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; ... (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants.” III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 134. The applicant argued that her complaint against the prosecutor’s decision to order her confinement had not been reviewed by the courts. She relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (c) OF THE CONVENTION 141. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against her had been excessive, that the courts that had examined her case had failed to take her testimony, and that the decisions of the appellate courts had failed to address all the arguments that she had raised before them. She relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides: “1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require”.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5, 5-1, 5-1-b, 5-1-e, 5-4, 6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c, 8, 8-1

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 16 Dec 2014
STATE:
United Kingdom
OUTCOME:
No violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3(c).
SUBJECT MATTER:

The applicants complained about their lack of access to lawyers during their initial police questioning, alleging that their subsequent convictions were unfair because of the admission at trial of the statements they had made during those police interviews.


  • DETAIL:

    Delaying access to a lawyer during police questioning of suspected terrorists was justified and did not prejudice their trial rights. Exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety (the risk of further attacks) and this threat provided compelling reasons justifying the temporary delay. Admission of statements at trial not a violation due to counterbalancing by procedural safeguards in national law (possibility to challenge the statements), the circumstances in which the statements had been obtained and their reliability, and strength of the other prosecution evidence.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1, 6.3(c)

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 18 Nov 2014
STATE:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6.3.(c) in conjunction with 6.1
SUBJECT MATTER:

Access to a lawyer during police custody.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged that his defence rights had been violated during the proceedings, inter alia, denial of access to a lawyer during his initial police custody, as he had been arrested on suspicion of an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1, 6.3(c)

CASE DATE:
Monday, 17 Nov 2014
STATE:
Bulgaria
OUTCOME:
Violation of Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Unavailability of basic procedural guarantees inherent in Article 5 against arbitrary detention (e.g. access to a lawyer or to information on the reasons for their detention; undertake proceedings in order to obtain their immediate release; or seek compensation for damages resulting from their arbitrary detention). Establishment of a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and that their detention was undertaken with the purpose of “bringing them before the competent legal authority”.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicants alleged that their detention by the police had breached Art. 5.1, .2, .4 and .5 (having been arrested without reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, not having been informed of the reasons for their detention in the orders issued against them, not having been given access to a lawyer during their detention, having been unable to bring proceedings to obtain their immediate release and, once released, not having been able to obtain compensation for their allegedly arbitrary detention).


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5

CASE DATE:
Friday, 5 Sep 2014
STATE:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to free legal assistance.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged that the lack of legal assistance at the time his statement was taken by the gendarmerie and during the investigation of the crime scene. He alleged that it was mandatory for the Government to provide free legal assistance according to Article 150 § 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1, 6.3(c)

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 28 Aug 2014
STATE:
Russia
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Procedural guarantees against arbitrary detention. Access to a lawyer. Freedom of assembly.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicants were detained on suspicion of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police during the mass disorders that allegedly took place at a political rally. They were arrested at the site of the demonstration, detained and convicted of administrative offences. They allege a violation of their right to peaceful assembly by the security measures implemented by the authorities in relation to an authorised and peaceful political rally. They further complain about their own arrest, detention and the ensuing conviction of administrative offences had been unlawful, arbitrary and not necessary in a democratic society.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1, 6.3(a)-(d), 11

CASE DATE:
Monday, 7 Jul 2014
STATE:
Russia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6.1 and 6.3(c)
SUBJECT MATTER:

Legal assistance. Coercion of the accused.


Page 3 of 8 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

JUSTICIA European Rights Network