Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EKLUND v. FINLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  EKLUND v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

  The mere fact that Justice P.V. sat in the composition of that court in two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant did not affect the court's impartiality as the two sets of proceedings before it related to two different sets of charges and there was no factual or legal nexus between them (see, mutatis mutandis, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], cited above, §§ 78-79; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 73, Series A no. 109; and Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

  As to the subjective test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 76, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

  Turning to the substance of the applicant's complaint, the Court notes that the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be determined according to a subjective test, that is, on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is, by ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to rule out any legitimate doubt in this respect (see, for example, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII; and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 71, 23 April 2015).

 
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 76574/01

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

  In this respect, the applicant's case is similar to the cases of Allen v. the United Kingdom (dec.) (no. 76574/01, ECHR 2002-VIII) and Elomaa v. Finland (dec.), no. 37670/04, 16 March 2010, where the Court found that the applicant's subsequent conviction for the offence of making a false declaration of his assets to the tax authority was not an example of forced self-incrimination, but the result of the offence itself.
• EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 25624/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

  The right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent and presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seeks to prove the case against the accused without resorting to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see, for example, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 94-117, ECHR 2006-IX; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 53-63, ECHR 2007-III; Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, § 44, ECHR 2002-IX; and Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, §§ 68-69, Reports 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 37670/04

  ELOMAA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

  In this respect, the applicant's case is similar to the cases of Allen v. the United Kingdom (dec.) (no. 76574/01, ECHR 2002-VIII) and Elomaa v. Finland (dec.), no. 37670/04, 16 March 2010, where the Court found that the applicant's subsequent conviction for the offence of making a false declaration of his assets to the tax authority was not an example of forced self-incrimination, but the result of the offence itself.
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94

  LIE AND BERNTSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

  The mere fact that Justice P.V. sat in the composition of that court in two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant did not affect the court's impartiality as the two sets of proceedings before it related to two different sets of charges and there was no factual or legal nexus between them (see, mutatis mutandis, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], cited above, §§ 78-79; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 73, Series A no. 109; and Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).