CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2020
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-204705
- Date
- 27 août 2020
- Publication
- 27 août 2020
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 27 August 2020 Published on 14 September 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 71507/16 Hermanus Maria HOESTE against the Netherlands lodged on 23 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the fact that he was not assisted by a lawyer during his first questioning by police, and the subsequent use by the trial courts of the evidence obtained in the absence of a lawyer. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, having regard to the fact that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during his first questioning by police and to the principles adopted by the Grand Chamber in the cases of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 255-65, 13   September 2016) and Beuze v. Belgium ([GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 120-50, 9 November 2018), has there been a breach of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?   2.     For what reason was the applicant’s lawyer allowed to attend the subsequent questionings of the applicant by police (which took place at a time when the right to be assisted by a lawyer during police questioning had not yet been recognised in the Netherlands)?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 27 août 2020
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-204705
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel