Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1993,18560
EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87 (https://dejure.org/1993,18560)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.06.1993 - 12952/87 (https://dejure.org/1993,18560)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Juni 1993 - 12952/87 (https://dejure.org/1993,18560)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1993,18560) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (110)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13942/88

    KRASKA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    There was a dispute (contestation) over the very existence of a right which could be said, on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, as the most recent authority, the Kraska v. Switzerland judgment of 19 April 1993, Series A no. 254-B, p. 48, para. 24).

    1] (art. 6-1), even if they are conducted before a constitutional court, where their outcome is decisive for civil rights and obligations" (Series A no. 254-B, pp. 48-49, para. 26).

  • EGMR, 29.03.1989 - 11118/84

    BOCK v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    According to the Court's well-established case-law, proceedings in a Constitutional Court are to be taken into account for calculating the relevant period where the result of such proceedings is capable of affecting the outcome of the dispute before the ordinary courts (see, inter alia, the Deumeland v. Germany judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100, p. 26, para. 77, the Poiss v. Austria judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, p. 103, para. 52, and the Bock v. Germany judgment of 29 March 1989, Series A no. 150, p. 18, para. 37).

    As to the question whether the right in issue was a "civil" right, the relevant criterion is in my view that which the Court applied in paragraph 35 of the judgment in order to determine the period to be taken into consideration as regards compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement, namely the potentially decisive influence of the Constitutional Court's decision on the outcome of the civil proceedings (see the Bock v. Germany judgment of 29 March 1989, Series A no. 150, p. 18, para. 37).

  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    In accordance with its established case-law (see, among many other authorities, the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 38, para. 93, and pp. 40-41, para. 98, and the Capuano v. Italy judgment of 27 July 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 11, para. 22), the Court will therefore examine all the proceedings in issue.

    1 (art. 6-1) (see the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, para. 94, and the Ettl and Others v. Austria judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, p. 17, paras. 34-35).

     
  • EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

    LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    The Court reached a different conclusion by making vague references to equally vague and uncertain notions ("close link", between the subject-matter of the two types of proceedings, "so interrelated", at paragraph 59), indeed even more vague than those it had developed in other circumstances, such as the Ringeisen rule, whose use in the present case confirms its fallacious nature, to which I have drawn attention on other occasions (separate opinion in the König v. Germany case, Series A no. 27, pp. 46 et seq., and Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium case, Series A no. 43, pp. 35 et seq.).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    The Court reached a different conclusion by making vague references to equally vague and uncertain notions ("close link", between the subject-matter of the two types of proceedings, "so interrelated", at paragraph 59), indeed even more vague than those it had developed in other circumstances, such as the Ringeisen rule, whose use in the present case confirms its fallacious nature, to which I have drawn attention on other occasions (separate opinion in the König v. Germany case, Series A no. 27, pp. 46 et seq., and Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium case, Series A no. 43, pp. 35 et seq.).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

    Brandstetter ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    The Court will examine the complaint in the light of the whole of paragraph 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-1) because the principle of equality of arms is only one feature of the wider concept of a fair trial, which also includes the fundamental right that proceedings should be adversarial (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Brandstetter v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 27, para. 66).
  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

    FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    The argument is not convincing: the Court has on more than one occasion had regard to interlocutory proceedings conducted before political institutions or administrative bodies or agencies (see, inter alia, the Foti and Others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 21, para. 63, and the Martins Moreira v. Portugal judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 143, pp. 19-21, paras. 55-60).
  • EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81

    Deumeland ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    According to the Court's well-established case-law, proceedings in a Constitutional Court are to be taken into account for calculating the relevant period where the result of such proceedings is capable of affecting the outcome of the dispute before the ordinary courts (see, inter alia, the Deumeland v. Germany judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100, p. 26, para. 77, the Poiss v. Austria judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, p. 103, para. 52, and the Bock v. Germany judgment of 29 March 1989, Series A no. 150, p. 18, para. 37).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    The applicants could therefore reasonably claim to have been deprived of the enjoyment of their shares in circumstances contrary to the law (see, mutatis mutandis, the Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, para. 192).
  • EGMR, 06.05.1981 - 7759/77

    Buchholz ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
    The Court sees no grounds for departing from this line of authority so as to revert to the approach adopted in the Buchholz v. Germany judgment of 6 May 1981 (Series A no. 42, p. 15, para. 48), as it was urged to do by the respondent Government and by the German and Portuguese Governments (see paragraph 5 above).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

    XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

    The Government further submitted that there was no analogy between the cases of Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain (23 June 1993, Series A no. 262), Süßmann v. Germany (16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV) and Voggenreiter v. Germany (no. 47169/99, ECHR 2004-I (extracts)) - in which the Court had found Article 6 § 1 applicable to the proceedings before the respective constitutional courts - and the applicant company's case.
  • EuGH, 04.06.2013 - C-300/11

    Einem Betroffenen ist der wesentliche Inhalt der Begründung einer Entscheidung …

    In Bezug auf das Gerichtsverfahren ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass der Gerichtshof bereits entschieden hat, dass die Verfahrensbeteiligten angesichts des Grundsatzes des kontradiktorischen Verfahrens, der Bestandteil der Verteidigungsrechte nach Art. 47 der Charta ist, das Recht darauf haben müssen, von allen beim Gericht eingereichten Schriftstücken oder Erklärungen Kenntnis zu nehmen, um diese erörtern und die Entscheidung des Gerichts beeinflussen zu können (Urteile vom 14. Februar 2008, Varec, C-450/06, Slg. 2008, I-581, Randnr. 45, vom 2. Dezember 2009, Kommission/Irland u. a., C-89/08 P, Slg. 2009, I-11245, Randnr. 52, und vom 21. Februar 2013, Banif Plus Bank, C-472/11, Randnr. 30; vgl. auch in Bezug auf Art. 6 Abs. 1 der am 4. November 1950 in Rom unterzeichneten Europäischen Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte vom 23. Juni 1993, Ruiz-Mateos/Spanien, Serie A, Nr. 262, § 63).
  • EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

    VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Therefore, not only did the applicant have a genuine opportunity to respond (see the Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 25, para. 63) but he actually did so.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht