Croissant v Germany: ECHR 25 Sep 1992

Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c
‘[I]t is for the courts to decide whether the interests of justice require that the accused be defended by counsel appointed by them. When appointing defence counsel the national courts must certainly have regard to the defendant’s wishes; indeed, German law contemplates such a course. However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice.’

Citations:

[1992] ECHR 60, 13611/88, (1993) 16 EHRR 135

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedBerry Trade Ltd and Another v Moussavi and Others CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had, it was alleged, had breached worldwide asset freezing orders, and was liable to be committed to prison. Legal Aid was refused by the Legal Services Commission. After several adjournments, the other party offered to pay for . .
CitedMaguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 21-Mar-2018
The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.165214