CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 septembre 1992

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September 1992 Croissant v. Germany - 13611/88 Judgment 25.9.1992 Article 6 Article 6-3-c Free legal assistance Legal assistance of his own choosing Order directing convicted person to pay fees of three court-appointed defence counsel, two designated at his request and the third against his will: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] 1.   Applicant's complaint involved compatibility with Article 6 of both the initial appointment and the subsequent reimbursement order. A.   Appointment of the lawyers 2.   It is not incompatible with Convention to require defendant to be assisted by counsel or to appoint more than one - however, appointment running counter to accused's wishes as to number will be incompatible with notion of fair trial if, even taking account of margin of appreciation, it lacks relevant and sufficient justification. Nomination of third counsel here could not be regarded as unnecessary: its aim of avoiding interruptions or adjournments of trial corresponded to an interest of justice and it was also designed to ensure that accused was adequately represented throughout. 3.   Accused's right to be defended by counsel of his own choosing: necessarily subject to certain limitations in relation to free legal aid and where it is for courts to decide whether interests of justice require appointment - defendant's wishes must be considered, but may be overridden when relevant and sufficient grounds for holding this necessary in interest of justice. Reasons advanced by national courts for appointment of lawyer in question and for rejecting applicant's request for revocation were relevant and sufficient - lawyer also took active part in defence, which not adversely affected by his designation. 4.   Appointment of three lawyers in question not incompatible with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c). B.   Reimbursement order 5.   Under Article 6 § 3 (c) free legal assistance to be provided only if accused has not sufficient means to pay - under German law, this question is immaterial at time of counsel's appointment, but becomes relevant, if accused is convicted, in subsequent procedure for recovery of costs - fairness of the proceedings not adversely affected by this system in present case. 6.   No need to decide whether it is compatible with Article   6   §   3 (c) for the State to continue to seek reimbursement after convicted person has established lack of sufficient means - having regard to recent court decisions concerning applicant, no reason to doubt that relevant Land legislation and practice relating to remission of costs will be applied in this case. Conclusion : no violation as regards the two counsel appointed at applicant's request (unanimously) or the third, appointed against his will (eight votes to one).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes