Source: http://eujusticia.net/index.php/case-law/category/access-to-a-lawyer-measure-c1/P10
Timestamp: 2017-03-27 14:32:35
Document Index: 12643190

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

TOLMACHEV v ESTONIA
CASE DATE:Thursday, 9 Jul 2015
STATE:Estonia
DETAIL:The applicant alleged that his right to a fair trial and to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing had been violated as a court refused to examine his complaint in respect of a misdemeanour fine because he had been absent from the hearing although his counsel had been present.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c	REFERENCE: 73748/13
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155827Link to this Case
SHAMOYAN v ARMENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings, Article 6-1 - Access to court)
DETAIL:The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention that she was denied access to the Court of Cassation since she could not afford the services of an advocate licensed to act before the Court of Cassation in order to lodge an appeal on points of law. The Court considers that this complaint essentially raises an issue of access to court and should therefore be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6, 6-1, 35, 35-1, 41	REFERENCE: 18499/08
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155811Link to this Case
DIMECH v MALTA
CASE DATE:Thursday, 2 Jul 2015
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
DETAIL:The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 about the lack of legal assistance while in police custody, relying on the judgment in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008).
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6, 6-1, 35	REFERENCE: 34373/13
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153312Link to this Case
OPRIȘ v ROMANIA
CASE DATE:Tuesday, 23 Jun 2015
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6, 6-1	REFERENCE: 15251/07
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155356Link to this Case
USHAKOV AND USHAKOVA v UKRAINE
CASE DATE:Thursday, 18 Jun 2015
DETAIL:The first applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that his self-incriminating statements obtained under duress and without the presence of a lawyer had been used for his conviction.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:3, 6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c	REFERENCE: 10705/12
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155199Link to this Case
SCHMID-LAFFER v SWITZERLAND
CASE DATE:Tuesday, 16 Jun 2015
STATE:Switzerland
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial)
DETAIL:The applicant maintains that he was not informed of his right to remain silent. He relies in this respect on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:6, 6-1, 35	REFERENCE: 41269/08
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155189Link to this Case
NALBANDYAN v ARMENIA
CASE DATE:Saturday, 6 Jun 2015
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Access to court)
DETAIL:The first and second applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been deprived of effective legal assistance. In particular, their request to be questioned in the presence of their lawyer on 26 August 2004 was rejected, while the atmosphere in the courtroom throughout the proceedings prevented their lawyers from performing their functions effectively. The first applicant further complained that he had been unlawfully denied access to the Court of Cassation. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:3, 6, 6+6-3-c, 6-1, 6-3-c	REFERENCE: 9935/06
23339/06
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153349Link to this Case
ZHYZITSKYY v UKRAINE
CASE DATE:Tuesday, 19 May 2015
OUTCOME:Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect)
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Criminal charge, Fair hearing)
DETAIL:The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been ill-treated by the police and that there had been no effective domestic investigation into the matter. He also complained that his self-incrimination under duress and in the absence of legal assistance had rendered his trial unfair.
COURT:ECHR	ARTICLE:3, 6, 6-1	REFERENCE: 57980/11
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-152255Link to this Case