Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
21 05 184 • KG LU 21 05 184 Généré par l'IA

Mandatory Counsel in Pre-Trial Investigation Absent Statutory Necessity

Numéro de cause 21 05 184
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Lucerne (CH-LU)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Miroir Entscheidsuche Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The court addressed whether mandatory legal representation is required during the investigative or preliminary examination phase, even in criminal cases, when the accused made self-incriminating statements that were later recanted. The court reasoned that neither cantonal procedural law nor higher federal law mandates indispensable legal assistance in the investigative or preliminary proceedings; while the right to counsel exists, it is not an obligation for the state to provide it unless specific statutory criteria for "necessary defense" are met, and the accused in this instance was deemed capable of understanding and exercising their rights independently, including the decision to waive counsel during initial interrogations.

Regeste Legislator

Officiel

Art. 29 Abs. 3 und 32 Abs. 2 BV; §§ 33 und 68 Abs. 1 StPO. Voraussetzungen der notwendigen Verteidigung. Weder das kantonale noch das übergeordnete Recht sehen eine obligatorische, unverzichtbare anwaltliche Verbeiständung im Ermittlungs- oder Untersuchungsverfahren vor, auch wenn es sich um eine Kriminalstrafsache handelt. Es besteht zwar ein Anspruch auf anwaltliche Verbeiständung, jedoch keine Pflicht dazu. | Strafprozessrecht

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
représentation obligatoire par avocat enquête pénale garantie d'un procès équitable droits procéduraux procédure préparatoire droit des obligations

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 6 Ziff. 3 lit. c EMRK
Art. 6 EMRK
Art. 32 Abs. 2 BV
Cited in the final disposition regarding the guarantee of effective defense rights, which was found not to require mandatory legal aid during the investigation phase.
Art. 32 BV
Art. 29 Abs. 3 BV
Cited in the final disposition regarding the constitutional right to a fair process, which was found not to mandate a lawyer during the investigation phase.
§ 33 StPO
Cited in the final disposition regarding the cantonal provision on necessary defense, which was found not to mandate a lawyer during the investigation phase.
§ 68 Abs. 1 StPO
Cited in the final disposition regarding the cantonal provision on the right of the defense to participate in investigative acts, which does not imply mandatory representation.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
1P.694/2001
Fiduciary Embezzlement and Fraud Conviction Upheld Against Defense and Speedy Trial Claims
1P.780/2003
Federal Supreme Court Upholds Embezzlement Conviction, Rejecting Defense Counsel Claims
BGE 131 I 350
Swiss Supreme Court Upholds Admissibility of Statements Despite Lack of Mandatory Pre-Trial Counsel in Drug Case
1P.487/2006
Federal Tribunal Upholds Conviction for Sexual Offenses Despite Counsel Waiver Claim
Généré par l'IA
KA 97 22 49
Statutory Counsel Appointment and Pre-Trial Detention Duration
OG 1994 65
Right to Defense Counsel Presence During Police Interrogation
2N 14 83
Defense Counsel Presence During Forensic Psychiatric Examination
OG 1991 64
Investigating Authority Scheduling Discretion vs. Defense Counsel Rights
7H 22 213
Administrative Proceeding Compulsion Upheld Despite Parallel Criminal Investigation

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 29 Abs. 3 BV

Cited in the final disposition regarding the constitutional right to a fair process, which was found not to mandate a lawyer during the investigation phase.

Art. 32 Abs. 2 BV

Cited in the final disposition regarding the guarantee of effective defense rights, which was found not to require mandatory legal aid during the investigation phase.

§ 33 StPO

Cited in the final disposition regarding the cantonal provision on necessary defense, which was found not to mandate a lawyer during the investigation phase.

§ 68 Abs. 1 StPO

Cited in the final disposition regarding the cantonal provision on the right of the defense to participate in investigative acts, which does not imply mandatory representation.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · II. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Strafprozessrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 21.06.2006

Fallnummer: · 21 05 184

LGVE: · 2007 I Nr. 51

Leitsatz: · Art. 29 Abs. 3 und 32 Abs. 2 BV; §§ 33 und 68 Abs. 1 StPO. Voraussetzungen der notwendigen Verteidigung. Weder das kantonale noch das übergeordnete Recht sehen eine obligatorische, unverzichtbare anwaltliche Verbeiständung im Ermittlungs- oder Untersuchungsverfahren vor, auch wenn es sich um eine Kriminalstrafsache handelt. Es besteht zwar ein Anspruch auf anwaltliche Verbeiständung, jedoch keine Pflicht dazu.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.