Omejitve pravice do zagovornika v predkazenskem postopku v judikaturi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice

Zalar, Neža (author), Gorkič, Primož (mentor)

Razvoj prakse ESČP na področju omejitev pravice do zagovornika je vrsto let potekal v smeri šir-jenja pravic osumljenih v predkazenskem postopku. Mejnik v praksi Sodišča je sodba v zadevi Salduz, s katero je Sodišče sprejelo stališče, da mora biti dostop do zagovornika zagotovljen od prvega zaslišanja dalje. Če so bile obremenilne izjave podane brez dostopa do zagovornika upora-bljene za obsodbo, je Sodišče ugotovilo kršitev 6(1) člena v povezavi s 6(3)(c) členom Konvencije. Nato pa Sodišče odloči v zadevi Ibrahim. Sodišče se pod krinko interpretacije sodbe Salduz odloči za postavitev novega, t. i. dvojnega testa, pri tem pa ne samo zniža doslej uveljavljen standard, ampak to stori tako nespretno, da se državam zdaj na tem področju pušča (pre)več manevrskega prostora.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: evropsko pravo človekovih pravic, pravica do zagovornika, predkazenski postopek, omejitve pravice do zagovornika, sodba v zadevi Salduz, sodba v zadevi Ibrahim.
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2018
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-100101
• COBISS.SI-ID: 16029265
• Publication date in RUL: 07.03.2018

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Limitations of the right to legal assistance in pre-trial proceedings in jurisprudence of European Court of Human rights

Abstract

The development of ECtHR's jurisprudence regarding the right to legal assistance went in the way of extending the rights of suspects for many years. The landmark case is case of Salduz. In Sal-duz judgement the Court stated that Article 6(1) requires that access to a lawyer should be provid-ed from the first interrogation of a suspect. If incriminating statements during police interviews (without access to a lawyer) are used for a conviction, the Court will find a violation of Article 6(3)(c) in conjunction with Article 6(1). ECtHR decides for a different approach in Ibrahim case. Here the Court sets up a new double test under the guise of interpreting Salduz judgement. The Court relinquishes the level of protection from earlier well-established case law. Furthermore, the new double test leaves too much discretion to the States regarding limitations of the right to legal assistance.

• Keywords: European human rights law, the right to legal assistance, pre-trial proceedings, limitations of the right to legal assistance, Salduz judgement, Ibrahim judgement.