Alinea 53 Gerechtshof Amsterdam 9 januari 2025

“The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention concerns two elements of a proper defence, namely the question of facilities and that of time. The question of time cannot be addressed in abstracto , but only in relation to the circumstances of the case (see Mortensen v. Denmark , no. 24867/94, Commission decision of 15 May 1996, unreported, and Hayward v. Sweden , no. 14106/88, Commission decision of 6 December 1991, unreported). The Court further reiterates that when determining the length of the preparatory time needed, it takes into account not only the complexity of the case, but also the usual workload of a legal counsel, who certainly cannot be expected to change his whole programme in order to devote all his time to one case. However, it is not unreasonable to require a defence lawyer to arrange for at least some shift in the emphasis of his work if this is necessary in view of the special urgency of a particular case (see, mutatis mutandis , X and Y v. Austria , no. 7909/74, Commission decision of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports 15, p. 163)”,

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/66e94de38d37125c26beff42dd7768acf8286ec2c3560f813e1941b6bde238eb | shasum -a 256