Case Article and Question Rules
Ozturk v Germany Applicability of Article 6 In order to determine whether Article 6 ECHR is
-road traffic accident (only applies to criminal applicable, the Court has to assess whether the
(crashed car into another) offences) charge is criminal or not. The relevant case law is
-failed complaint against Is Article 6 ECHR applicable? Ozturk v Germany.
proceedings (criminal From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses three
offence) criteria (Engels criteria):
-pay for own interpreter
1. Classification of the offence in national law
Violation of Article 6 - Whether the offence belongs to criminal law,
ECHR according to domestic law
- If it is already under criminal law in domestic
law, then Article 6 is applicable
2. Nature and degree of the sanction incurred
- The more severe the sanction, the more
likely the offence is criminal
- Deprivation of liberty (jail) is always severe, as
well as high fines
3. Nature and severity of the offence
- Addressed to everyone
- Retributive goal
- Criminal in other legal systems
Venditelli v Italy Article 6(1) states: "everyone
-flat sealed because he is entitled to a ... hearing This right is regulated under Article 6 (1) ECHR. The
infringed on regulations of within a reasonable time". relevant case law is Venditelli v Italy.
town planning Has the right to be tried
-proceedings took over 4 within a reasonable time From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses five steps
years been violated under Article in order to determine if the proceedings were too
-no ‘delay’ because of the 6(1) ECHR?
long:
state authorities
No violation of Article
1. The period that has to be taken into
6(1) ECHR
consideration.
- The start of the period that has to be evaluated
is the beginning of the criminal proceedings
- The end is the final decision
2. Is the case complex?
3. What was the conduct of the applicant?
4. What was the conduct of the authorities
(state)?
5. What was at stake (for the applicant)?
Brogan and others v UK Has there been a violation Promptly: can hold in detention for less than 4 days
-detention before trial of Article 5(3) ECHR? and 6 hours (without being brought in front
Violation of Article 5(3) of a judge), with no exceptions.
ECHR
, The difference from the Letellier case is that Brogan v
UK is detention before indictment, but
Letellier is detention during trial.
Letellier v France This right is regulated under Article 5(3) in
-charged with being an The applicant's rights of conjunction with Article 5(1) (c) ECHR. The relevant
accessory to murder/ having a trial within a case law is Letellier v France.
inciting a man to murder reasonable time or a
her husband by paying him release pending trial From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses two
off Has the applicant's rights of criteria in order to determine if the applicant's
-detained for 2 years and 9 having a trial within a rights of having a trial within a reasonable time or a
months reasonable time or a release release pending trial been violated:
-no sufficient grounds for pending trial
the defendant’s continued been violated under Article 1. Persistence of reasonable suspicion that the
detention 5(3) in conjunction with person has committed the crime.
Violation of Article 5(3) Article 5(1) (c) ECHR?
in conjunction with 2. Relevant and sufficient grounds for the
Article 5(1) (c) ECHR person's continued detention:
- When it is necessary to prevent the defendant
from influencing the witnesses. (Becomes less
relevant with time)
- Risk of absconding (this can not be the only
reason. If it is, the accused must be released
with sufficient guarantees)
- Risk of public order being disturbed
- Adequacy of court supervision has to be
evaluated.
Over time, those grounds to secure evidence become
less and less relevant.
The gravity of the charge can not by itself justify long
periods of time for detention.
Khan v UK (Silver and Quality of law under Article This right is regulated under Article 8 ECHR. The
other v UK) 8 ECHR (accessibility and relevant case law is Khan v UK.
-visits known drug dealer foreseeability)
under surveillance Has the applicant’s right to From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses two step
-accidentally admits to private life under Article 8 test in order to determine whether the applicant’s
complicity on tape ECHR been violated? right to private life has been violated:
-testimony unjustified Khan v UK
under national law
Violation of Article 8 1. Was there an interference by a public
ECHR authority with the applicant’s private life,
home or correspondence?
2. If there is, was it justified?
● In accordance with domestic law? (accessible
and foreseeable) Khan v. UK/Allan v. UK
● Undertaken in the pursuit of one of the aims
under Article 8(2)?
Ozturk v Germany Applicability of Article 6 In order to determine whether Article 6 ECHR is
-road traffic accident (only applies to criminal applicable, the Court has to assess whether the
(crashed car into another) offences) charge is criminal or not. The relevant case law is
-failed complaint against Is Article 6 ECHR applicable? Ozturk v Germany.
proceedings (criminal From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses three
offence) criteria (Engels criteria):
-pay for own interpreter
1. Classification of the offence in national law
Violation of Article 6 - Whether the offence belongs to criminal law,
ECHR according to domestic law
- If it is already under criminal law in domestic
law, then Article 6 is applicable
2. Nature and degree of the sanction incurred
- The more severe the sanction, the more
likely the offence is criminal
- Deprivation of liberty (jail) is always severe, as
well as high fines
3. Nature and severity of the offence
- Addressed to everyone
- Retributive goal
- Criminal in other legal systems
Venditelli v Italy Article 6(1) states: "everyone
-flat sealed because he is entitled to a ... hearing This right is regulated under Article 6 (1) ECHR. The
infringed on regulations of within a reasonable time". relevant case law is Venditelli v Italy.
town planning Has the right to be tried
-proceedings took over 4 within a reasonable time From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses five steps
years been violated under Article in order to determine if the proceedings were too
-no ‘delay’ because of the 6(1) ECHR?
long:
state authorities
No violation of Article
1. The period that has to be taken into
6(1) ECHR
consideration.
- The start of the period that has to be evaluated
is the beginning of the criminal proceedings
- The end is the final decision
2. Is the case complex?
3. What was the conduct of the applicant?
4. What was the conduct of the authorities
(state)?
5. What was at stake (for the applicant)?
Brogan and others v UK Has there been a violation Promptly: can hold in detention for less than 4 days
-detention before trial of Article 5(3) ECHR? and 6 hours (without being brought in front
Violation of Article 5(3) of a judge), with no exceptions.
ECHR
, The difference from the Letellier case is that Brogan v
UK is detention before indictment, but
Letellier is detention during trial.
Letellier v France This right is regulated under Article 5(3) in
-charged with being an The applicant's rights of conjunction with Article 5(1) (c) ECHR. The relevant
accessory to murder/ having a trial within a case law is Letellier v France.
inciting a man to murder reasonable time or a
her husband by paying him release pending trial From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses two
off Has the applicant's rights of criteria in order to determine if the applicant's
-detained for 2 years and 9 having a trial within a rights of having a trial within a reasonable time or a
months reasonable time or a release release pending trial been violated:
-no sufficient grounds for pending trial
the defendant’s continued been violated under Article 1. Persistence of reasonable suspicion that the
detention 5(3) in conjunction with person has committed the crime.
Violation of Article 5(3) Article 5(1) (c) ECHR?
in conjunction with 2. Relevant and sufficient grounds for the
Article 5(1) (c) ECHR person's continued detention:
- When it is necessary to prevent the defendant
from influencing the witnesses. (Becomes less
relevant with time)
- Risk of absconding (this can not be the only
reason. If it is, the accused must be released
with sufficient guarantees)
- Risk of public order being disturbed
- Adequacy of court supervision has to be
evaluated.
Over time, those grounds to secure evidence become
less and less relevant.
The gravity of the charge can not by itself justify long
periods of time for detention.
Khan v UK (Silver and Quality of law under Article This right is regulated under Article 8 ECHR. The
other v UK) 8 ECHR (accessibility and relevant case law is Khan v UK.
-visits known drug dealer foreseeability)
under surveillance Has the applicant’s right to From this case it follows that the ECtHR poses two step
-accidentally admits to private life under Article 8 test in order to determine whether the applicant’s
complicity on tape ECHR been violated? right to private life has been violated:
-testimony unjustified Khan v UK
under national law
Violation of Article 8 1. Was there an interference by a public
ECHR authority with the applicant’s private life,
home or correspondence?
2. If there is, was it justified?
● In accordance with domestic law? (accessible
and foreseeable) Khan v. UK/Allan v. UK
● Undertaken in the pursuit of one of the aims
under Article 8(2)?
