SWS Academic Research eLibrarySocial Sciences & Art

Scholarly record

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE LAWYER IN ECHR JURISPRUDENCE AND OF THE ROMANIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Lorena Gabriela Ni?oiu

First published: 2024https://doi.org/10.35603/sws.iscah.2024/fs01.12View metrics

Abstract

Correspondence between a lawyer and his client, regardless of its purpose, is protected under article 8 of the Convention, which gives it increased protection in terms of confidentiality. In Romania, the Constitutional Court considers regarding the correspondence between a lawyer and his client, that it contributes essentially to the defense of the client, being an intrinsic element of the fundamental right to defense, enshrined in article 24 of the Constitution. Therefore, the lawyer-client relationship is qualified as a privileged one. The analysis of the Constitutional Court must have as a premise the privileged status of lawyer-client correspondence, which benefits from a specific legal treatment, without putting the sign of equality between this and ordinary correspondence between individuals. Romania must regulate a normative framework capable of providing additional protection for this type of correspondence.

Publication Impact Profile

PlumX Article Metrics by Elsevier

Publication details

Title
THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE LAWYER IN ECHR JURISPRUDENCE AND OF THE ROMANIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Authors
Lorena Gabriela Ni?oiu
Proceedings
Proceedings of 11th SWS International Scientific Conference on Social Sciences - ISCSS 2024
Publisher
SGEM WORLD SCIENCE (SWS) Scholarly Society
Year
2024
Pages
81-88
SWS Citekey
Nitoiu202411111
ISSN
2682-9959
ISBN
978-3-903438-10-1
Language
en
Publication type
Proceedings Paper
Proceedings contents
Open official contents
Keywords
Secrecy of corespondencethe right to defencethe right to a fair trialConstitutional CourtlawyerECHR jurisprudence
References12

  1. Case of Niemietz v.Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Strasbourg, para.29, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001- 57887%22]} on April 10, 2024.Section Name

  2. Case of Roemen and Schmit v. Luxemburg, judgment of 25 February 2003, Strasbourg, para. 65, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60958%22]} on April 10, 2024.

  3. Case of Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Strasbourg, p. 41, para. 8, and p. 52, para. 25, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57627;%22]} on April 10, 2024.

  4. Case of Petri Sallinen and Others v.Finland, judgment of 27 September 2005, Strasbourg, para.71, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-70283%22]} on April 10, 2024.

  5. Case of Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen Gmbh v.Austria, judgment of 16 October 2007, Strasbourg, para.66, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-82711%22]} on April 10, 2024.

  6. Case of Vinci Construction and GTM Genie Civil et Services v. France, judgment of 2 April 2015, Strasbourg, para.69, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-180118%22]} on April 10, 2024.

  7. Case of Laurent v.France, judgment of 24 May 2018, Strasbourg, para.36, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-183129%22]} on April 10, 2024.

  8. Dinu C.G., A comparison between the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Charter of Human Rights, Annals of DAAAM for 2010 & Proceedings of the 21st International DAAAM Sympozium, WSEAS Press isbn:17269679, Wien, Austria, 2010 consulted on the website www.daaam.com; Dinu C.G., Adam R. The Admissibility of an Individual’s Claim at the European Court of Human Rights, The 7th International Conference on Challenges in Higher Education and Research in the 21st Century, June 2-5 2009, Sozopol, Bulgaria, Heron Press Ltd isbn:978-954-580-268-3, 2009 consulted on the website http://elfe.tu-sofia.bg/cher21/

  9. Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no.724 of June 1, 2010, published in the Official Gazette no.465 of July 7, 2010; Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no.1241 of October 6, 2009, published in the Official Gazette no.749 of november 4, 2009.

  10. Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no.23 of January 18, 2017, published in the Official Gazette no.235 of April 5, 2017, paragraphs 47-49.

  11. Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no. 546 of October 24, 2023, published in the Official Gazette no. 140 of February 19, 2024, para.14.

  12. Case of Versini-Campinchi and Crasnianski v.France, judgment of June 16, 2016, Strasbourg, para.77 and 123, para.127 and 132, consulted on the website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-194629%22]} on April 11, 2024.

View or Download full articleAccess options
Full paper accessChoose SWS login, librarian support, or instant article download.

SWS access login

Login as SWS Scientific Committee

Authors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.

For librarian assistance: [email protected]

Purchase Instant Access

48-hour online accessComing soon
Online-only accessComing soon
Download the full article in PDF formatEUR 35
  • Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
  • Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
  • Article cannot be redistributed.
Get full paper

Back to publication list