Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Gillan and Quinton v. The United Kingdom (1) |
The Court observes that although the length of time during which each applicant was stopped and search did not in either case exceed 30 minutes, during this period the applicants were entirely deprived of any freedom of movement. This element of coercion is indicative of a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. |
|
|
Funke v. France (1) |
There has been a breach of Article 8:
|
|
|
Funke v. France (2) |
The right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself. |
|
|
Gillan and Quinton v. The United Kingdom (2) |
The Court considers that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act are neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They are not, therefore, “in accordance with the law” and it follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. |
|
|
Teixeira De Castro v. Portugal |
The Court concludes that the two police officers’ actions went beyond those of undercover agents because they instigated the offence and there is nothing to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed.
There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1. |
|
|
Uzun v. Germany |
The processing and use of the data obtained by GPS amounted to an interference with his private life as protected by Article 8 § 1.
The Court considers that the applicant's surveillance via GPS, as carried out in the circumstances of the present case, was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and thus “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2. |
|
|
Gäfgen v. Germany |
“Exclusonary Rule”: Evidence extracted through torture is inadmissible.
Violation of Article 3 |
|
|
Buck v. Germany |
proportionality principle in search and seizures; violation of Article 8 |
|
|
Saunders v. The United Kingdom |
Right to remain silent/self-incrimination
The applicant was deprived of a fair hearing in violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention |
|
|
Aleksandar Zaichenko v. Russia |
Right to a lawyer/waiver of rights/definition of a charge
The right to silence applies:
The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. |
|
|
Salduz v. Turkey |
Legal council from the beginning; violation of Article 6 § 1.
-the absence of a lawyer while he was in police custody irretrievably affected his defence rights.
-a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance.
-Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police |
|
|
Allan v. The United Kingdom |
Right to remain silent; In those circumstances, the information gained by the use of H. in this way may be regarded as having been obtained in defiance of the will of the applicant and its use at trial impinged on the applicant's right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 |
|
|
O’Hara v. The United Kingdom |
Pre-trial detention, arrest;
The applicant was held for six days and thirteen hours before his eventual release and that this was not in compliance with the requirement to bring an arrested person promptly before an appropriate judicial officer.
The Court finds that there has in this respect been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; breach of Article 5 § 5 - compensation |
|
|
Mooren v. Germany |
Access to records; No detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1;
A delay of eighty-two days between the expiry of the initial order of detention in a psychiatric institution and its renewal and the lack of adequate safeguards to ensure that the applicant's detention would not be unreasonably delayed was found to be inconsistent with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 to protect individuals from arbitrary detention.
Equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his client's detention => Violation of Art. 5 (4):
- lack of a speedy review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention
- refusal to grant the applicant's counsel access to the case file in the proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention
|
|
|
Czarnecki v. Poland |
Detention on remand; the Court cannot but note that even though the applicant was indicted in November 1996, it took the trial court almost a year to hold the first hearing. The Government failed to provide any explanation as to this period during which the trial court apparently remained inactive. That delay should be considered significant and it cannot therefore be said that the authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention |
|
|
Mattoccia v. Italy |
Right to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation; Length of criminal proceedings
- detailed information concerning the charges against a defendant is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the proceedings are fair
- the accused must at any rate be provided with sufficient information as is necessary to understand fully the extent of the charges against him with a view to preparing an adequate defence
- the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence
Violation of Article 6 (1) and (3) a & b |
|
|
Edwards v. The United Kingdom |
Discloser of all evidence to defence;
- the Court concludes that the defects of the original trial were remedied by the subsequent procedure before the Court of Appeal. Moreover, there is no indication that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were in any respect unfair.
|
|
|
Foucher v. France |
Discloser of all evidence to defence;
- it was important for the applicant to have access to his case file and to obtain a copy of the documents it contained in order to be able to challenge the official report concerning him.
- the applicant had been unable to prepare an adequate defence and had not been afforded equality of arms, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention taken together with Article 6 para. 3 |
|
|
Taxquet v Belgium |
Right to a reasoned judgement;
- conviction by the Assize Court had been based on a guilty verdict which did not contain reasons
- the applicant was not afforded sufficient safeguards enabling him to understand why he was found guilty. Since the proceedings were not fair, there has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. |
|
|
Sejdovic v. Italy |
Right to appear to a trial;
- the Rome Assize Court convicted the applicant of murder and illegally carrying a weapon and sentenced him to twenty-one years and eight months' imprisonment
- a person “charged with a criminal offence” is entitled to take part in the hearing. Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 guarantee to “everyone charged with a criminal offence” the right “to defend himself in person”, “to examine or have examined witnesses” and “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”
- a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards
- everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right “to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him” - Art 6 (3)
- A person charged with a criminal offence does not lose the benefit of this right merely on account of not being present at the trial.
Violation of Article 6
|
|
|
Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. The United Kingdom |
Witness statement and the Sole or decisive test;
- “If the defendant has been given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the depositions either when made or at a later stage, their admission in evidence will not in itself contravene Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d).
- Article 6 § 3(d) enshrines the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all evidence against him must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument.
- the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him
- First, there must be a good reason for the non-attendance of a witness. Second, when a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence may be restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (the so-called “sole or decisive rule”)
- two types of fear: fear which is attributable to threats or other actions of the defendant or those acting on his or her behalf and fear which is attributable to a more general fear of what will happen if the witness gives evidence at trial.
- if the conviction of a defendant is solely or mainly based on evidence provided by witnesses whom the accused is unable to question at any stage of the proceedings, his defence rights are unduly restricted
- no violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3(d) of the Convention in respect of X;
- a violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3(d) of the Convention in respect of Y
|
|
|
Jalloh v. Germany |
Attaining of evidence, Right to not incriminate oneself;
- violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
- violation of Article 6 § 1 |
|
|
Bykov v. Russia |
Length of pre-trial detention, interception of communication;
- the court failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify extending the applicant's detention pending trial to one year, eight months and 15 days.
Violation of Article 5 § 3
- the interference with the applicant's right to respect for private life was not “in accordance with the law”, as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
Violation of Article 8
|
