Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=14032/88
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 14:55:37+00:00

Document:
Rechtsprechung: 14032/88 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 10.07.1991
https://dejure.org/1993,13562
EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88 (https://dejure.org/1993,13562)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.11.1993 - 14032/88 (https://dejure.org/1993,13562)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. November 1993 - 14032/88 (https://dejure.org/1993,13562)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1993,13562) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation de l'Art. 6-1+6-3-c Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - demande rejetée Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)
Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
EKMR, 10.07.1991 - 14032/88
Für ein faires Strafverfahren ist es von zentraler Bedeutung, dass der Angeklagte persönlich am Verfahren teilnimmt (vgl. EGMR, Poitrimol v. Frankreich, Urteil vom 23. November 1993, Nr. 14032/88, § 35).
Für ein faires Strafverfahren ist es weiterhin von zentraler Bedeutung, dass der Angeklagte persönlich am Verfahren teilnimmt (…BVerfG, aaO, Rn. 100 f.; EGMR, Urteil vom 23.11.1993, 14032/88 § 35 Poitrimol/Frankreich).
The Court's assessment (a) Recapitulation of the relevant principles 45. The Court reiterates that 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. It therefore examines complaints relating to these rights under both provisions taken together (see, inter alia, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
The legislature must accordingly be able to discourage unjustified absences" (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A).
So hat auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) in mehreren Entscheidungen zu Strafverfahren festgestellt, daß das - wenngleich nicht absolut gegebene - Recht jedes Angeklagten, sich von einem ihm erforderlichenfalls von Amts wegen beizuordnenden Rechtsanwalt tatsächlich verteidigen zu lassen, zu den grundlegenden Merkmalen eines fairen Prozesses gehört und daß ein Angeklagter dieses Recht nicht bereits dadurch verliert, daß er nicht in der Hauptverhandlung zugegen ist (vgl. Urteile des EGMR vom 23. November 1993 im Fall Poitrimol/Frankreich, Serie A, Nr. 277-A, vom 22. September 1994 im Fall Pelladoah/Niederlande, Serie A, Nr. 297-B, und vom 21. Januar 1999 im Fall Van Geyseghem/Belgien, noch nicht in der amtlichen Sammlung veröffentlicht).
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 (Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A, and Hermi, cited above, § 73).
In written submissions of 16 March 1994 summarising his address, the applicant's counsel referred to the European Court's judgment in the Poitrimol v. France case (23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A).
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 complaint under both provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, the Poitrimol v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, § 29).
Correspondingly, as was stated in the Poitrimol case, "the legislature must... be able to discourage unjustified absences" (see the Poitrimol v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 15, § 35).
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).
As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (art. 6-3) 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, as the most recent authority, the Poitrimol v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, para. 29).
In its judgment the Court has made several references to the Poitrimol v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A.
The Court reiterates that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. The Court will therefore examine the relevant complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A; and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).
EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03
EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02
EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02
EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 64734/11
LEUSKA AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 32806/09
EGIC v. CROATIA
EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 34839/11
VYBORNOVA v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 29453/07
SERBAN v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 39582/04
EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 6781/04
EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 20310/02
PLONKA v. POLAND
EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 31338/04
BOYARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 40766/06
EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 38396/97
KARATAS ET SARI contre la FRANCE
EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 31070/96
EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 74444/11
NASTASE v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 30006/09
TUZIKS v. LATVIA
EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 738/05
GOLOTA v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15383/05
EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 40768/06
GUNEY v. SWEDEN
EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 21451/02
GUEGAN c. FRANCE
EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 35827/97
GASPARIC contre la FRANCE
EGMR - 37368/15 (anhängig)
CHONG CORONADO c. ANDORRE
EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 25916/94
VASQUEZ MARTINEZ v. SPAIN
https://dejure.org/1991,22002
EKMR, 10.07.1991 - 14032/88 (https://dejure.org/1991,22002)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.1991 - 14032/88 (https://dejure.org/1991,22002)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 1991 - 14032/88 (https://dejure.org/1991,22002)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1991,22002) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
POITRIMOL contre la FRANCE

References: Art. 6
 § 35
 § 35
 § 29
 § 82
 § 35
 EGMR 
 § 34
 § 50
 § 31
 § 73
 § 29
 § 35
 § 29
 § 34
 § 50
 § 3
 § 1
 § 29
 § 29
 § 118

EGMR