Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRINCAT c. ITALIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 5-3 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 13.07.1990 - 13867/88
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  The Government, however, invited the Court to return to the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979 (Series A no. 34, p. 15, para. 34), which showed that only the effective concurrent exercise of such functions, as opposed to the mere abstract possibility thereof, was such as to infringe Article 5 para.
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  According to the Court's case-law, a judicial officer who is competent to decide on detention may also carry out other duties, but there is a risk that his impartiality may arouse legitimate doubt on the part of those subject to his decisions if he is entitled to intervene in the subsequent proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, para. 43).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

  MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  4 (art. 3, art. 5-4), but the latter two complaints are outside the scope of the case as defined by the Commission's decision on admissibility (see among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 24, para. 70).

• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 33060/10

  Vertretungsverbot gegen einen Anwalt ohne vorherige Durchführung einer mündlichen …

  Referring to its case-law, the Court finds that no award can be made with respect to the claim for cost and expenses in this case (see Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, § 77-78, Series A no. 209; Brincat v. Italy, 26 November 1992, § 29, Series A no. 249-A; and Malek v. Austria, no. 60553/00, § 55, 12 June 2003).
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3394/03

  Medvedyev u. a. ./. Frankreich

  Tout en relevant que les autorités espagnoles étaient intervenues légalement pour arraisonner le navire battant pavillon panaméen, l'Espagne et le Panama étant parties à la Convention de Vienne de 1988, ils critiquent le fait de n'avoir pas été détenus sur le navire sous la supervision d'un « juge ou un autre magistrat habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires ", mais du procureur de la République qui n'a pas cette qualité au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour (Schiesser c. Suisse, 4 décembre 1979, série A no 34, Huber c. Suisse, 23 octobre 1990, série A no 188, et Brincat c. Italie, 26 novembre 1992, série A no 249-A), en particulier en raison de son manque d'indépendance par rapport au pouvoir exécutif.
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  La doctrine De Cubber peut se comparer à celle de l'arrêt Huber c. Suisse du 23 octobre 1990 (série A no 188), où la Cour a posé comme règle que l'appartenance aux autorités de poursuite empêche de siéger comme juge du fond (comparer l'arrêt Brincat c. Italie du 26 novembre 1992, série A no 249-A, p. 11, par. 20).

 
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the "officer" may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality may be open to doubt (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the "officer" may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality may be open to doubt (see Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43, and Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31195/96

  NIKOLOVA c. BULGARIE

  In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the "officer" may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality are capable of appearing open to doubt (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
• EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 27540/95

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties in the present application and taken into consideration by the European Court on Human Rights in its judgment on the previous application (see Eur. Court HR, Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp. 8-9, paras. 6-12), may be summarised as follows.

  3 of the Convention (see Eur. Court HR, Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A).

• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 64962/01

  OZEROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that, in relation to Article 6 § 1 and in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, it has found doubts as to impartiality to be objectively justified where there is some confusion between the functions of prosecutor and judge (see, with regard to Article 6 § 1, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 4 2095/98, §§ 35-38, ECHR 2000-X, and, regarding Article 5 § 3, Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp. 11-12, §§ 20-22; Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, pp. 17-18, §§ 41-43 ; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3298-99, §§ 146-50).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  In the Court's view, however, the latter complaint is outside the scope of the case as defined by the Commission's decision on admissibility (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 10, para. 16).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 39731/98

  PETUR THOR SIGURÐSSON v. ICELAND

  26-27, §§ 77-78 ; Brincat c. Italie, 26 novembre 1992, série A no 249-A, p. 13, § 29).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  HOOD c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 47473/99

  HELLBORG v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  KRIVOSHAPKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.05.2016 - 56666/12

  SLAKU v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 39105/05

  JAANTI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 36945/97

  CASTANHEIRA BARROS c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 06.10.1998 - 27540/95

  BRINCAT c. ITALIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 52367/99

  MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 53760/00

  B.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 36833/97

  H.G. v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 20918/92

  M.H. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 19133/91

  SCOLLO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 60553/00

  MALEK v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 26.11.1997 - 27159/95

  STAMOULAKATOS c. GRÈCE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 15.04.2003 - 62274/00

  JARLAN c. FRANCE