Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELEGGINGS- EN BEEHEERSMAATSCHAPPIJ INDIANA V.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

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

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  To hold otherwise would often place unacceptable limits on the possibility to obtain expert advice (see Zumtobel v. Austria, Comm. Report 30.6.92, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 268-A, para. 86; Eur. Court H.R., Brandstetter judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, para. 44).

  The Commission also recalls in this respect the case-law as regards the use of experts employed by an administrative authority which is in a certain way involved in proceedings (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Bönisch judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 15, para. 32; Brandstetter judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, para. 44; and Zumtobel v. Austria, Comm. Report 30.6.92, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 268-A, p. 22, para. 86).

• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  To hold otherwise would often place unacceptable limits on the possibility to obtain expert advice (see Zumtobel v. Austria, Comm. Report 30.6.92, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 268-A, para. 86; Eur. Court H.R., Brandstetter judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, para. 44).

  The Commission also recalls in this respect the case-law as regards the use of experts employed by an administrative authority which is in a certain way involved in proceedings (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Bönisch judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 15, para. 32; Brandstetter judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, para. 44; and Zumtobel v. Austria, Comm. Report 30.6.92, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 268-A, p. 22, para. 86).

• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  The Commission also recalls in this respect the case-law as regards the use of experts employed by an administrative authority which is in a certain way involved in proceedings (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Bönisch judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 15, para. 32; Brandstetter judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, para. 44; and Zumtobel v. Austria, Comm. Report 30.6.92, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 268-A, p. 22, para. 86).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is, inter alia, to place the domestic courts under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to the domestic courts' assessment thereof (Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment, Series A no. 288, p. 19, para. 59).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

  PROCOLA c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Ortenberg judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, p. 48, para. 28 and Procola judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, para. 39).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  The Commission recalls that, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Vidal judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, para. 33), but the Commission may ensure that the presentation of evidence was fair.
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Ortenberg judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, p. 48, para. 28 and Procola judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, para. 39).

• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  SARA LIND EGGERTSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  In this regard the Government prayed in aid the decisions in the cases of Beleggings- en Beheersmaatschappij Indiana B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21491/93, of 29 November 1995, and Wolfgang Blum and Klaus Ignaz Jacobi v. Austria (dec.) no. 26527/95 of 18 November 1995.

  Therefore, the Court is unable to share the Government's view that this was merely a question of experts being employed by the same administrative authority as that involved in the case (see Bönisch, cited above, § 32; cf. Brandstetter, cited above, p. 21, §§ 44-45; Zumtobel v. Austria, Commission's report of 30 June 1992, § 86, ECHR Series A no. 268-A; Beleggings- en Beheersmaatschappij Indiana B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.) no. 21491/93, 29 November 1995; and Wolfgang Blum and Klaus Ignaz Jacobi v. Austria (dec.) no. 26527/95 of 18 November 1995).