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.

Right to Information (Measure B) (56 Entries)

Displaying 1-10 of (56)


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:
Thursday, 8 Oct 2015
STATE:
Slovenia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Civil proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained that she could not effectively enjoy the rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention since she had been unaware of proceedings which had been instituted against her.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6-1

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 6 Oct 2015
STATE:
Romania
OUTCOME:
No 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) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-1) Reasonable time (Art. 6-3) Rights of defence


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair, and in particular that it was impossible for him to present his case and make his defence as the SRI refused to release evidence to the court.


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

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 6 Oct 2015
STATE:
Romania
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair in so far as he had been convicted without evidence being heard directly either from him or from the witnesses whilst he was present.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6, 6-1

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, 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:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing


  • DETAIL:

    On the grounds of Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained of a lack of fairness of the procedure into several branches . He complains first not to have been informed of the opinion of the Attorney General in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation. It also complains of the solution adopted by the domestic courts , evidence of assessment mode , particularly expert reports , as well as the non- application in respect of certain legal provisions reducing pain. On this point, he criticizes in particular the Criminal Court of having no stay of execution of his sentence or commuted it to a fine , as he had done for one of his co-accused. In addition, it alleges a lack of reasons for decisions of domestic courts.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6, 6-1

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 16 Jul 2015
STATE:
Romania
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage, Just satisfaction)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture (Art. 3) Degrading treatment (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general} (Art. 41) Just satisfaction (Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage


  • DETAIL:

    The applicants complained that if it had not been for the undercover police agent’s insistence, the first applicant would not have procured and sold the drugs and the second applicant would not have been compelled to help his brother out with the deal. They further complained that they could not obtain an expert evaluation of the drugs by an independent body; they argued that so long as the laboratories were subordinate to the police, which was an interested party in the case, the principle of equality of arms was breached. They also considered that there had been an interference with their defence rights in so far as the courts had excluded from the file most of the CDs containing the recordings of their conversations, without hearing them first and without allowing their lawyer to assess their utility for the defence. The second applicant added that he had discovered a conversation between his brother and the undercover police agent which could have proved that he had not been involved in the drug trafficking. The second applicant lastly complained that the court of appeal had denied him the right to study the case file.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 6, 6-1, 41

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 7 Jul 2015
STATE:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial) Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure administrative, Adversarial proceedings) Pecuniary damages (Article 41 - Pecuniary damages, Just satisfaction)
SUBJECT MATTER:

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Administrative proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-1) Adversarial trial (Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general} (Art. 41) Just satisfaction (Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant submitted that he had not had a fair hearing by the Supreme Military Administrative Court. He complains in particular of the lack of notification of the final medical report drawn up by the board of health of the GATA military hospital, arguing that he was thus deprived of the opportunity to respond to the findings.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6, 6-1, 41

Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

JUSTICIA European Rights Network