Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.M.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  The Commission notes that the present case is different from, for example, the Oberschlick case, in which the European Court of Human Rights found a lack of impartiality where domestic law prohibited the participation of appeal judges in both the first and the second set of proceedings (Eur. Court HR, Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 23, para. 50), in that the participation of Lord Justice Otton and Mr Justice Scott Baker at the Court of Appeal on both the appeal and the question of a point of law of general public importance was not contrary to domestic law.
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  1 of the Convention must be determined according to two tests (see, for example, Eur. Court HR, Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, paras. 46 and 47).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and the role of the appeal court therein: in the case of leave to appeal proceedings, the nature of those proceedings and their significance in the context of the proceedings as a whole must be considered, together with the powers of the appellate jurisdiction and the manner in which the proceedings are actually conducted (see for example Eur. Court HR, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, para. 56; Fejde v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, p. 67, para. 26).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and the role of the appeal court therein: in the case of leave to appeal proceedings, the nature of those proceedings and their significance in the context of the proceedings as a whole must be considered, together with the powers of the appellate jurisdiction and the manner in which the proceedings are actually conducted (see for example Eur. Court HR, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, para. 56; Fejde v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, p. 67, para. 26).
• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 7987/77

  COMPANY X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (see for example No. 7987/77, X v. Austria, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18, pp. 31, 45; No. 19890/92, Ziegler v. Switzerland, Dec. 3.5.93, D.R. 74, p. 234).
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

  NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  What matters is not the fact of dual participation, but the scope and nature of the decisions taken (see Eur. Court HR, Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, para. 33).
• EKMR, 03.05.1993 - 19890/92

  ZIEGLER v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (see for example No. 7987/77, X v. Austria, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18, pp. 31, 45; No. 19890/92, Ziegler v. Switzerland, Dec. 3.5.93, D.R. 74, p. 234).

• EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

  Also, in the Court's view, the scope of the examination as to whether or not to grant leave to appeal against the decision of the Court for Trusts, did not amount to an assessment of the merits of the appeal (see, mutatis mutandis, R.M.B. v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 37120/97, ECHR 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-36, 22 November 2011), which, had leave been granted, would have been determined in line with the opinion of a different judicial body, namely a panel of experts (see paragraph 57 above) (see, mutatis mutandis, Warsicka, cited above, § 44).