Alinea 84 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 12 juni 2012

180. In this connection, the Court reiterates that, under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, an accused is entitled to legal assistance which is practical and effective and not theoretical or illusory. This Convention provision speaks of "assistance" and not of "nomination": mere nomination does not ensure effective assistance since a lawyer may be prevented from providing such assistance owing to various practical reasons, or shirk his or her duties. A State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal-aid purposes. However, if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or is sufficiently brought to the authorities' attention in some other way, the authorities must take steps to ensure that the accused effectively enjoys the right to legal assistance (see Artico v. Italy, 13 may 1980, §§ 33-37, Series A no.37, and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 december 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168). Moreover, where it is clear that the lawyer representing the accused before the domestic court has not had the time and facilities to organize a proper defence, the court should take measures of a positive nature to ensure that the lawyer is given an opportunity to fulfill his obligations in the best possible conditions (see mutatis mutandis, Goddi v. Italy, 9 april 1984, § 31, Series A no. 76).

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/58a6fa0f10fddd663dd97748f5517dbac3142af532dc3aad72c11d4e583eba91 | shasum -a 256