Judgment Jemeljanovs v. Latvia - accused's dismissal of two State-appointed lawyers and defence rights

CtEDO 2016-10-06 0,89

had expected a favourable response, but to which D. had not responded. The written application stated that the applicant was refusing the services of D. on the grounds that all applications made to the court on 1 September 2005 had been dra

CtEDO 2012-01-17 0,88

d that he could not name a specific lawyer to whom he wished to entrust his defence. The court adopted an interim non-appealable decision, which in the relevant parts provided as follows: “At the preparatory stage of the trial [the applican

CtEDO 2017-10-05 0,88

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right t

CtEDO 2017-10-05 0,88

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right t

CtEDO 2012-03-08 0,88

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)37 [1] Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights 2 cases against Latvia Case, Application No. Date of decision Dudarevs, application No. 28621/10 14/06/2011 Zerebkovs, application No. 19615/03