Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=28.10.2010&Aktenzeichen=22313/04
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 04:20:03
Document Index: 671744806

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 6', '§ 57', '§ 21', '§ 57', '§ 58', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 57', '§ 65', '§ 65', '§ 57', '§ 55', '§ 54', '§ 65', '§ 54', '§ 264', '§ 54', '§ 264']

EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 22313/04 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2010,63152
EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 22313/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63152)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.10.2010 - 22313/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63152)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Januar 2010 - 22313/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63152)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63152) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)
The third party reminded the Grand Chamber of the approach used by the Chamber in the case of Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine (no. 22313/04, § 57, 28 October 2010), in which the right to a fair trial had been found to have been irretrievably prejudiced by the fact that a confession obtained without access to a lawyer had been used for a conviction, even if they had not been the sole basis for it.
Neither subsequent legal assistance nor the adversarial process of the ensuing proceedings will necessarily cure defects which occur during the applicant's pre-trial custody period (see Mehmet Serif Öner v. Turkey, no. 50356/08, § 21, 13 September 2011; Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 57, 28 October 2010; Salduz, cited above, § 58; and Plonka v. Poland, no. 20310/02, §§ 39-41, 31 March 2009).[6].
See also, on the vulnerability of detainees, Mehmet Serif Öner v. Turkey no. 50356/08, 13 September 2011; Plonka v. Poland, no. 20310/02, §§ 39-41, 31 March 2009; and Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 57, 28 October 2010.
Furthermore, given the Court's findings regarding the unfairness of the domestic proceedings resulting in the applicant's conviction (see paragraphs 110 and 120 above), the Court considers it indispensable for the proper protection of human rights that a retrial (the possibility of which is envisaged in the Ukrainian legislation) be provided forthwith should the applicant so request (see, for example, Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 65, 28 October 2010).
Furthermore, the Court notes that where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see, for example, Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 65, 28 October 2010).
Although there was other evidence against the applicant, the significant likely impact of his initial confessions on the further development of the criminal proceedings against him and the fact that they clearly played an important role in the judgments of the domestic courts cannot be ignored by the Court (see Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 57, 28 October 2010).
The applicant also drew an analogy between his situation and that examined in the case of Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine (no. 22313/04, § 55, 28 October 2010), where the failure of the authorities to ensure the applicant's legal representation before his first questioning by the police was found to be contrary to the national legislation given that life imprisonment was a possible penalty.
Accordingly, the waivers were not attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with their importance (see, for example, Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, §§ 54 and 56, 28 October 2010).
The Court further notes that where an individual, as the first applicant in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see, for example, Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 65, 28 October 2010).
The Court found, in particular, that the Ukrainian authorities had often resorted to such practice with a view to circumventing the legal requirement of mandatory legal representation where applicable (see, for example, Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 54, 28 October 2010, and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 264, 21 April 2011).
The Court has on many occasions condemned the practice of placing a person under administrative arrest to ensure his availability for questioning as a criminal suspect while not respecting his procedural rights (see, for example, Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 54, 28 October 2010, and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo, cited above, § 264).
EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 20963/08
BOYETS v. UKRAINE
EGMR - 29384/12 (anhängig)
CIERNY v. SLOVAKIA
EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 27388/05
LOYKO v. LATVIA