CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 19 September 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18297/13 D.L. against Germany lodged on 1 March 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Berlin District Court’s failure to appoint the applicant a lawyer in the criminal proceedings against him. That court convicted the applicant of assault and libel, sentenced him to a fine and ordered him to pay 430 euros in compensation to the victim of these offences. The victim was represented in the proceedings by a lawyer mandated by him in so far as he acted as joint plaintiff to the prosecution and by a court-appointed counsel in so far as his civil compensation claims were concerned. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard, in particular, to the reasons given by the Federal Constitutional Court for its decision, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the interests of justice and, in particular, the principle of equality of arms, require that the applicant be afforded free legal assistance, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings before the District Court?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c) of the Convention, in that the domestic courts refused appointing him a lawyer by reference to the fact that the victim acting as joint plaintiff to the prosecution had paid for the lawyer representing him whereas the applicant would have been appointed a lawyer if the lawyer representing the victim acting as joint plaintiff to the prosecution had been court-appointed?