Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WARSICKA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  The principle that a tribunal shall be presumed to be free of personal prejudice or partiality is long established in the case-law of the Court (see, for example, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 25, § 58).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  The Court would further observe that the present case is different from the Oberschlick v. Austria case in which a lack of impartiality of a court was found where domestic law prohibited the participation of appeal judges in both the first and the second set of proceedings (Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 50).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  The Court has thus distinguished between a subjective approach, that is endeavouring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular case, and an objective approach, that is determining whether he or she offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Piersack v. Belgium, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, § 30 and Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 118-119, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  In applying the subjective test the Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 47).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  The Court further reiterates that it is of fundamental importance in a democratic society that the courts inspire confidence in the public (see the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 27).

• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 1543/06

  BACZKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Ce n'est certes qu'à l'égard de ces derniers que l'article 6 de la Convention impose aux tribunaux saisis d'une affaire d'être impartiaux, tant subjectivement qu'objectivement (Findlay c. Royaume-Uni, 25 février 1997, § 73, Recueil 1997-I, et Warsicka c. Pologne, no 2065/03, §§ 34-37, 16 janvier 2007).
• EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

  As regards the objective test, the Court reiterates that the requirements of a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention do not automatically prevent the same judge from successively performing different functions within the framework of the same case (see Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, § 40, 16 January 2007 and, a contrario, San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 55997/14

  DOS SANTOS CALADO ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  La procédure devant le juge rapporteur fait ainsi entièrement partie de la procédure d'admissibilité des recours constitutionnels prévue à l'article 78-A de la LOTC, le comité de trois juges n'est donc pas une entité à part entière et autonome appelée à se prononcer sur la question litigieuse (comparer avec San Leonard Band Club c. Malte, no 77562/01, § 61-63, CEDH 2004-IX, Driza c. Albanie, no 33771/02, § 78-79, CEDH 2007-V (extraits), Kayasu c. Turquie, nos 64119/00 et 76292/01, § 121, 13 novembre 2008, Pereira da Silva c. Portugal, no 77050/11, § 59-60, 22 mars 2016, Warsicka c. Pologne, no 2065/03, § 41, 16 janvier 2007, et Binder c. Allemagne (déc.), no 44455/07, 20 septembre 2011).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  SCERRI v. MALTA

  Alternatively, it is possible to consider that in the present case the same judges performed different functions in the same proceedings (compare Peru?. v. Slovenia, no. 35016/05, § 38, 27 September 2012 and Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, § 40, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 56134/08

  KORZENIAK v. POLAND

  What is decisive is whether the fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, § 58, Reports 1996-III, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 44, ECHR 2000-XII, Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, § 37, 16 January 2007 and Micallef, quoted above, §§ 96-98).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  STURUA v. GEORGIA

  In other words, on appeal, the same four judges were called upon to reconsider their own decision in the same case in its entirety, to review whether or not they themselves had committed any error in their assessment of the facts or of legal interpretation (compare with San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 61-66, ECHR 2004-IX; Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005; and HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia, no. 50996/08, §§ 37-42, 5 June 2014; contrast with Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, §§ 43-47, 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-38, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 75587/17

  ROBLEDO v. ITALY

  In similar cases, it is necessary to consider whether the link between substantive issues determined at various stages of the proceedings is so close as to cast doubt on the impartiality of the judge (see Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, § 40, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 77050/11

  PEREIRA DA SILVA c. PORTUGAL

  La Cour doit notamment rechercher s'il y a un lien étroit entre les questions que ce juge a eu successivement à trancher (Warsicka c. Pologne, no 2065/03, § 40, 16 janvier 2007 ; et Toziczka c. Pologne, no 29995/08, § 36, 24 juillet 2012).