Source: http://eujusticia.net/index.php/case-law/category/legal-aid-reform-measure-c2
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 03:39:26
Document Index: 292041997

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 41', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3']

Legal Aid Reform (Measure C2) (18 Entries)
Displaying 1-10 of (18)
SANADER v CROATIA
CASE DATE:Monday, 6 Jul 2015
STATE:Croatia
OUTCOME:Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies)
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
DETAIL:The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had not been able to obtain a rehearing after his conviction in absentia, and that he had not been effectively represented by a legal-aid lawyer during the proceedings conducted in his absence, as required by Article 6 §§ 1.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6, 6-1, 6-3, 35, 35-1, 41	REFERENCE: 66408/12
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-151039Link to this Case
VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v RUSSIA
CASE DATE:Friday, 26 Jun 2015
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, Legal assistance of his own choosing)
Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage, Just satisfaction)
(Art. 6-3-c) Legal assistance of his own choosing
(Art. 41) Pecuniary damage
DETAIL:The applicants alleged that they had been convicted of distributing counterfeit software and copyright infringement following entrapment by the police in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Mr Volkov also complained that he had not been afforded free legal assistance during the appeal proceedings in his case.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c, 35, 41	REFERENCE: 7614/09
30863/10
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-152988Link to this Case
OGORODNIK v UKRAINE
CASE DATE:Tuesday, 5 May 2015
OUTCOME: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)
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,	REFERENCE: 29644/10
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-150791Link to this Case
YEVGENIY PETRENKO v UKRAINE
CASE DATE:Wednesday, 29 Apr 2015
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)
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	REFERENCE: 55749/08
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-150650Link to this Case
ONAR v Turkey
CASE DATE:Tuesday, 16 Dec 2014
OUTCOME:Violation of Article 6.1
SUBJECT MATTER: Legal aid. Fair trial. Access to court.
DETAIL:The applicant alleged that by refusing their legal aid request, the civil court of first instance had breached their right of access to a court.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6.1, Article 1 of Protocol 12, Articles 2 and 14	REFERENCE: 13160/07
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-148658Link to this Case
Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques
CASE DATE:Thursday, 11 Dec 2014
OUTCOME:"...the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
"The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as extending to the right of an illegally staying third-country national to express, before the adoption of a return decision concerning him, his point of view on the legality of his stay, on the possible application of Articles 5 and 6(2) to (5) of that directive and on the detailed arrangements for his return.
"However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a competent national authority to warn the third-country national, prior to the interview arranged with a view to that adoption, that it is contemplating adopting a return decision with respect to him, or to disclose to him the information on which it intends to rely as justification for that decision, or to allow him a period of reflection before seeking his observations, provided that the third-country national has the opportunity effectively to present his point of view on the subject of the illegality of his stay and the reasons which might, under national law, justify that authority refraining from adopting a return decision.
"The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that an illegally staying third-country national may have recourse, prior to the adoption by the competent national authority of a return decision concerning him, to a legal adviser in order to have the benefit of the latter’s assistance when he is heard by that authority, provided that the exercise of that right does not affect the due progress of the return procedure and does not undermine the effective implementation of Directive 2008/115.
"However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require Member States to bear the costs of that assistance by providing free legal aid."
SUBJECT MATTER: Reference for a preliminary ruling — Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right of an illegally staying third-country national to be heard before the adoption of a decision liable to affect his interests — Return decision — Right to be heard before the return decision is issued — Extent of that right
DETAIL:...the tribunal administratif de Pau decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
1. a) What is the extent of the right to be heard laid down by Article 41 of [the Charter] for an illegally staying third-country national in respect of whom a decision falls to be taken as to whether or not he is to be returned? b) In particular, does that right include the right [for that foreign national] to be put in a position to analyse all the information relied on against him as regards his right of residence, to express his point of view, in writing or orally, with a sufficient period of reflection, and to enjoy the assistance of counsel of his own choosing?
2. If necessary, must the extent of that right be adjusted or limited in view of the general interest objective of the return policy set out in Directive [2008/115]?
3. If so, what adjustments or limitations must be made, and on the basis of what criteria should they be established?
COURT:ECJ	ARTICLE:Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC (Returns Directive)	REFERENCE: C‑249/13
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160563&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first∂=1&cid=188895Link to this Case
RITCHIE and others v United Kingdom
CASE DATE:Thursday, 13 Nov 2014
OUTCOME:Decision; inadmissible.
SUBJECT MATTER: Discretion of state. Legal aid for rehearing of formal investigation. No need for legal aid for litigation. Fair trial.
DETAIL:The applicants alleged that the refusal to grant them legal aid to challenge by way of judicial review the findings of the reopened formal investigation was a violation of their fair trial rights.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:2, 6, 8	REFERENCE: 6788/12
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-148679Link to this Case
VAYTKEVICH v Azerbaijan
CASE DATE:Monday, 13 Oct 2014
OUTCOME:Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER: Free legal assistance. Prompt information – in a language he or she understands – of the nature and cause of accusations against him or her. Fair trial.
DETAIL:The applicant alleged that he could not defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention – In particular, was he afforded free legal assistance at the initial stage of the proceedings.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6.1, 6.3(a) and (c)	REFERENCE: 81547/12
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-147897Link to this Case
BIBIN v Azerbaijan
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6.1, 6.3(a) and (c)	REFERENCE: 81545/12Link to this Case
GÜÇLÜ v Turkey
CASE DATE:Friday, 5 Sep 2014
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)	REFERENCE: 45202/07
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-146656Link to this Case
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 > JUSTICIA European Rights Network