Article contents
Öztürk Case
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Abstract
State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Right of accused to services of intepreter — Article 6(3)(e) — Whether State permitted to impose charge for interpreter's services as part of order for costs — Just satisfaction in respect of breach established — Article 50
State responsibility — Damages (Measure of damages) — Grounds for awarding damages — Breach of right of accused person to free services of interpreter — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Costs for reimbursement of interpretation fees — Legal costs incurred before Convention institutions — Whether borne by applicant
The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of — Treatment by and responsibilities of the receiving State — Right of accused person to services of interpreter — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(3)(e) — Whether State permitted to impose charge for interpreter's services as part of order for costs
Treaties — Interpretation of — Principles and rules of interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(3)(e) — Meaning of “criminal offence” — Autonomy of term — Object and purpose of Article 6
Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction of Chamber — Relinquishment of jurisdiction in favour of plenary Court — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950
The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Right of person accused of criminal offence to services of interpreter — Whether State permitted to impose charge for interpreter's services as part of order for costs — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(3)(e) — Whether applicable — Decriminalization of minor traffic offences as “regulatory” offences — Whether criminal offences — Autonomy of term — Whether text defining offence part of criminal law — Nature of offence — Nature and severity of penalty — Purpose of penalty — Whether deterrent and punitive — Object and purpose of Article 6 — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction of Chamber — Relinquishment of jurisdiction in favour of plenary Court — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of Convention — Article 50 — Just satisfaction in respect of breach established — Costs for reimbursement of interpretation fees — Legal costs incurred before Convention institutions — Whether borne by applicant
- Type
- Case Report
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press 1987
- 1
- Cited by