Prawo do korzystania z pomocy obrońcy w świetle orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

Jarosław Zagrodnik

Prawo do korzystania z pomocy obrońcy w świetle orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

Publication date: 31.10.2022

Attorney-at-Law, 2022, 2 (31), pp. 181 - 198

https://doi.org/10.4467/23921943RP.22.026.16889

Authors

Pobierz pełny tekst

PDF

Titles

Prawo do korzystania z pomocy obrońcy w świetle orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

Abstract

Przedmiotem artykułu jest analiza standardu prawa oskarżonego do korzystania z profesjonalnej pomocy prawnej, wypracowanego w orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka. Jej celem jest zobrazowanie szerokiego rozumienia tego prawa przez Trybunał, które znajduje oparcie nie tylko w jego esencjonalnych składnikach treściowych, ale również w jego powiązaniu z zasadą rzetelnego procesu. Przybliżeniu w ten sposób podlega zakres podmiotowy i przedmiotowy prawa oskarżonego do korzystania z pomocy obrońcy, kwestia zrzeczenia się tego prawa, przesłanki wyznaczenia obrońcy z urzędu oraz kryteria realizacji standardu gwarancyjnego, który z tego prawa wynika. Puentę stanowi kilka refleksji wynikających z zestawienia „konwencyjnego” standardu prawa do korzystania z pomocy obrońcy z jego uregulowaniem w polskim porządku prawnym.

The right to the assistance of the defense counsel in the light of the European Court of Human Rights case law

The article analyzes the standard of the accused’s right to enjoy professional legal assistance as developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Its purpose is to illustrate the Court’s broad understanding of this right, which is supported not only by its essential substantive components but also in its connection to the principle of a fair trial. It highlights the subjective and objective scopes of the accused’s right to the assistance of the defense counsel as well as the question of the waiver of this right, the prerequisites for appointment of the public defender, and the criteria for the implementation of the guarantee standard arising from this right. In the conclusion, the author presents several reflections resulting from the juxtaposition of the “conventional” standard of the right to the assistance of the defense counsel with its implementation in the Polish legal order.

Keywords

prawo do obrony, obrońca, oskarżony, Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, orzecznictwo

right to the assistance of the defense counsel; right to defense; the accused’s right, the principle of a fair trial, European Court of Human Rights

References

Download references

Literature

Chmielniak Ł., Rychlewska-Hotel A., Klonowski M., Zagrodnik J., Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz praktyczny do nowelizacji2019, ed. J. Zagrodnik, Warszawa 2020.

Daszkiewicz W., Prawo karne procesowe. Zagadnienia ogólne, Bydgoszcz 2000.

Golik C., Funkcja informacyjna przedstawienia zarzutów, “Wojskowy Przegląd Prawniczy” 2021, no. 3.

Waltoś S., [in:] S. Waltoś, P. Hofmański, Proces karny. Zarys systemu, Warsaw 2016.

Wiliński P., [in:] System Prawa Karnego Procesowego, editor-in-chief P. Hofmański, Vol. III: Zasady procesu karnego, part 2, ed. P. Wiliński, Warsaw 2014.

Legal acts

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union of 2016, C 202.

Code of Criminal Procedure – Act of 6 June 1997, consolidated text published in Journal of Laws of 2020, item 30, as amended.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Journal of Laws of 1993, no. 61, item 2854, as amended.

Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, Official Journal of the European Union of 2016, L 297.

Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, Official Journal of the European Union of 2012, L 142.

Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, Official Journal of the European Union of 2013, L 294.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature on 16 December 1966 in New York (Journal of Laws of 1977, no. 38, item 167).

Judgements

Case law of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Court

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 11 December 2012, ref. no. K 37/11, OTK-A 2012, no. 1.

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 June 2008, ref. no. K 42/07, OTK-A 2008, no. 5.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 February 2004, V KK 194/03, OSNKW 2004, no. 4, item 42.

Case law of the European Court of Human Rights

ECtHR judgment in Dvorski v. Croatia of 20.10.2015, Application No. 25703/11.

ECtHR judgment of 10.10.2002 in Czekalla v. Portugal, Application No. 38830/97.

ECtHR judgment of 10.6.1996 in Benham v. United Kingdom, Application No. 19380/92.

ECtHR judgment of 10 December 1982 in Corigliano v. Italy, A 57.

ECtHR judgment of 10 December 1982 in Foti and Others v. Italy, A 56.

ECtHR judgment of 11.7.2006 in Jalloh v. Germany, Application No. 54810/00.

ECtHR judgment of 12.5.2017 in Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, Application No. 21980/04.

ECtHR judgment of 12.7.1984 in Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81.

ECtHR judgment of 13.1.2019 in Rybacki v. Poland, Application no. 52479/99.

ECtHR judgment of 13.9.2016 in Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom; Applications No. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08, and 40351/09.

ECtHR judgment of 16.5.2017 in Artur Parkhomenko v Ukraine, Application no. 40464/05.

ECtHR judgment of 17.2.2009 in İbrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, Application No. 16500/04.

ECtHR judgment of 18.12.2001 in R.D. v. Poland, Applications No. 29692/96 and 34612/97.

ECtHR judgment of 19.11.2015 in Mikhaylova v. Russia, Application No. 46998/08.

ECtHR judgment of 19.2.1991 in Artico v. Italy, Application No. 11910/85.

ECtHR judgment of 2.11.2010 in Sakhnovskiy v. Russia, Application No. 21272/73.

ECtHR judgment of 20.1.2009 in Güveç v. Turkey, Application No. 70337/01.

ECtHR judgment of 20.10.2005, Application No. 25703/11.

ECtHR judgment of 21.1.1999 in Van Geyseghem v. Belgium, Application No. 26103/95.

ECtHR judgment of 21.4.1998 in Daud v. Portugal, Application No. 22600/93.

ECtHR judgment of 21 February 1984 in Öztürk v. Germany, Application No. 16500/04.

ECtHR judgment of 22.9.1994 in Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, Application No. 16737/90.

ECtHR judgment of 23.10.2018 in Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, Application No. 38740/09.

ECtHR judgment of 24.1.2019 in Knox v. Italy, Application No. 76577/13.

ECtHR judgment of 24.10.1993 in Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, Application No. 13972/88.

ECtHR judgment of 24.5.1991 in Quaranta v. Switzerland, Application No. 12744/87.

ECtHR judgment of 25.4.1983 in Pakelli v. Germany, Application No. 8398/78.

ECtHR judgment of 25.7.2013 in Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, Applications No. 11082/06 and 13772/05.

ECtHR judgment of 25.7.2017 in M. v. the Netherlands, Application No. 2156/10.

ECtHR judgment of 25.8.1992 in Croissant v. Germany, Application No. 13611/88.

ECtHR judgment of 26.07.2002 in Meftah and Others v. France, Applications No. 32911/96, 35237/97, and 34595/97.

ECtHR judgment of 27.11.2007 in Zagaria v. Italy, Application No. 58295/00.

ECtHR judgment of 27.11.2008 in Salduz v Turkey, Application No. 36391/02.

ECtHR judgment of 27.11.2018 in Soytemiz v. Turkey, Application No. 57837/09.

ECtHR judgment of 28.11.1991 in S. v. Switzerland, Applications No. 12629/87 and 13965/88.

ECtHR judgment of 28.3.1990 in Granger v. UK, Application No. 11932/86.

ECtHR judgment of 29.6.2016 in Truten v. Ukraine, Application No. 18041/08.

ECtHR judgment of 29.8.2008 in Caresana v. United Kingdom, Application No. 31541/96.

ECtHR judgment of 30.5.2013 in Martin v. Estonia, Application No. 35985/09.

ECtHR judgment of 6.1.2016 in Turbylev v. Russia, Application No. 4722/09.

ECtHR judgment of 9.11.2018 in Beuze v. Belgium, Application No. 71409/10.

ECtHR judgment of 9.4.2015 in Vamvakas v. Greece (No. 2), Application No. 2870/11.

Information

Information: Attorney-at-Law, 2022, 2 (31), pp. 181 - 198

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/23921943RP.22.026.16889

Article type: Original article

Titles:

Polish:

Prawo do korzystania z pomocy obrońcy w świetle orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

English:

The right to the assistance of the defense counsel in the light of the European Court of Human Rights case law

Authors

Jarosław Zagrodnik

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0428-8067

Silesia University, Bankowa 12, 40-007 Katowice

Published at: 31.10.2022

Article status: Open

Licence: None

Percentage share of authors:

Jarosław Zagrodnik (Author) - 100%

Article corrections:

Publication languages:

Polish

View count: 325

Number of downloads: 432

<div id="cke_pastebin"> The right to the assistance of the defense counsel in the light of the European Court of Human Rights case law</div>

Download xml