6. člen Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin določa, da ima vsakdo, ki je obdolžen kaznivega dejanja, pravico, da se brani sam ali z zagovornikom po lastni izbiri ali, če nima dovolj sredstev za plačilo zagovornika, ga dobi brezplačno, če to zahtevajo interesi pravičnosti.
Ta določba je povezana s kazenskimi zadevami, vendar je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice odločilo, da to načelo velja tudi za civilne zadeve.
Ker gre za pravico do pravne pomoči me zanima, če pozna kdo številko spisa te zadeve, ki jo je odločilo Evropsko sodišče.
Dejanski stan je bil nekako takole: ker benham ni plačal davka, ga je pristojni organ dal v zapor za 30 dni...država je trdila, da gre po pravu UK za civilni postopek, sodišče je odločilo da je bil Benham "obtožen kriminalnega ravnavnja" (charged with a criminal offence) v skladu s točko c 3. odst. 6. čl. EKČP...pri tem se je oprlo na tri kriterije:
1. za kakšen postopek gre po pravu države članice
2. kakšna je dejanska narava postopka
3. kakšna je narava in stopnja predpisane kazni
Citiram bistvo odločbe:
54. The applicant, with whom the Commission agreed, argued that the
proceedings before the magistrates involved the determination of a
criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
He referred to the facts that what was in issue was not a dispute
between individuals but rather liability to pay a tax to a public
authority, and that the proceedings had many "criminal" features, such
as the safeguards available to defendants aged under 21, the severity
of the applicable penalty and the requirement of a finding of
culpability before a term of imprisonment could be imposed.
Furthermore, it was by no means clear that the proceedings were
classified as civil rather than criminal under the domestic law.
55. The Government argued that Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c) did
not apply because the proceedings before the magistrates were civil
rather than criminal in nature, as was borne out by the weight of the
English case-law. The purpose of the detention was to coerce the
applicant into paying the tax owed, rather than to punish him for not
having paid it.
56. The case-law of the Court establishes that there are three
criteria to be taken into account when deciding whether a person was
"charged with a criminal offence" for the purposes of Article 6
(art. 6). These are the classification of the proceedings under
national law, the nature of the proceedings and the nature and degree
of severity of the penalty (see the Ravnsborg v. Sweden judgment of
23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B).
As to the first of these criteria, the Court agrees with the
Government that the weight of the domestic authority indicates that,
under English law, the proceedings in question are regarded as civil
rather than criminal in nature. However, this factor is of relative
weight and serves only as a starting-point (see the Weber
v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 17,
para. 31).
The second criterion, the nature of the proceedings, carries more
weight. In this connection, the Court notes that the law concerning
liability to pay the community charge and the procedure upon
non-payment was of general application to all citizens, and that the
proceedings in question were brought by a public authority under
statutory powers of enforcement. In addition, the proceedings had some
punitive elements. For example, the magistrates could only exercise
their power of committal to prison on a finding of wilful refusal to
pay or of culpable neglect.
Finally, it is to be recalled that the applicant faced a
relatively severe maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment, and
was in fact ordered to be detained for thirty days (see the Bendenoun
v. France judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 20,
para. 47).
Having regard to these factors, the Court concludes that
Mr Benham was "charged with a criminal offence" for the purposes of
Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (art. 6-1, art. 6-3). Accordingly, these two
paragraphs of Article 6 (art. 6-1, art. 6-3) are applicable.
Kar nekaj mesecev sem se mučil s to zadevo, kupi literature in HUDOC-om. Vse kasnejše sodbe v zvezi s pravno pomočjo izhajajo iz sodbe Evropskega sodišča Airey v Irska - pravica dostopa do brezplačne pravne pomoči in Golder v Uk - pravica dostopa do odvetnika. Evropsko sodišče je širše opredelilo določbe 6-1 člena EKČP glede pravne pomoči, ki mora biti dostopna vsakomur, če to zahtevajo interesi pravičnosti in zagotavlja vsakomur, da pred sodiščem začne postopek glede pravo civilnih pravic in obveznosti. V tem primeru pa konvencija nalaga državam, da zagotovijo učinkovito izvrševanje te pravice - tudi prava neukim osebam. In kdor meni, da so bile njegove pravice do pravne pomoči kršene (plačljive ali brezplačne), lahko pod določenimi pogoji vloži zadevo pri ESČP.
Pogoji so izpolnjeni ker nas je do sedaj zavrnilo okoli 70 odvetnikov in zaradi nekaterih drugih kršitev konvencije bo v kratkem vložena tožba proti Sloveniji na ESČP. Ali bo to prva sodba proti Sloveniji zaradi kršitve konvencije glede dostopa do pravne pomoči in glede dostopa do sodišča pa naj odloči ES.
Ne, ne moreš dodajati novih tem v tem forumu Ne, ne moreš odgovarjati na teme v tem forumu Ne, ne moreš urejati svojih prispevkov v tem forumu Ne, ne moreš brisati svojih prispevkov v tem forumu Ne ne moreš glasovati v anketi v tem forumu
