Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RIEPAN c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 35115/97
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  In a number of cases it has found that the fact that proceedings before an appellate court are held in public cannot remedy the lack of a public hearing at the lower instances where the scope of the appeal proceedings is limited, in particular where the appellate court cannot review the merits of the case, including a review of the facts and an assessment of the proportionality between the fault and the sanction (see, for instance, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 26, § 60, the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 19, § 36, and the Diennet judgment cited above, p. 15, § 34, all relating to disciplinary proceedings falling under the civil head of Article 6 § 1; see also the Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 20, § 39, concerning good order in court proceedings falling under the criminal head of Article 6 § 1).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 15-16, § 33).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  However, hindrance in fact can contravene the Convention just like a legal impediment (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 14, § 25).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  In a number of cases it has found that the fact that proceedings before an appellate court are held in public cannot remedy the lack of a public hearing at the lower instances where the scope of the appeal proceedings is limited, in particular where the appellate court cannot review the merits of the case, including a review of the facts and an assessment of the proportionality between the fault and the sanction (see, for instance, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 26, § 60, the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 19, § 36, and the Diennet judgment cited above, p. 15, § 34, all relating to disciplinary proceedings falling under the civil head of Article 6 § 1; see also the Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 20, § 39, concerning good order in court proceedings falling under the criminal head of Article 6 § 1).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  To this end, all the evidence should, in principle, be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument (see the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 34, § 78, and the Ekbatani v. Sweden judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 31).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  The Court considers that the present case concerning ordinary criminal proceedings cannot be compared to that of Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, where it held that a requirement that disciplinary proceedings against convicted prisoners should be held in public would impose a disproportionate burden on the authorities of the State (judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 42, § 87).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  Moreover, referring to the Court's De Cubber v. Belgium judgment (26 October 1984, Series A no. 86), they argued that a lack of publicity, unlike a lack of impartiality, did not affect the court's internal organisation and was, in principle, capable of being remedied.
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  The Court recalls that in the area of proceedings which are classified neither as "civil" nor as "criminal" under domestic law, but as disciplinary or administrative, it is well established that the duty of adjudicating disciplinary or minor offences may be conferred on professional or administrative bodies which do not themselves comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as long as they are subject to review by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction (see, in particular, the Albert and Le Compte judgment cited above, p. 16, § 29, for disciplinary proceedings; see, as examples, the Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, pp. 21-22, § 56, and the Schmautzer v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-A, p. 15, § 34, for administrative proceedings concerning minor offences).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society (see, for instance, the Pretto and Others v. Italy judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 11, § 21; the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33; and the Werner v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, p. 2510, § 45).
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  In a number of cases it has found that the fact that proceedings before an appellate court are held in public cannot remedy the lack of a public hearing at the lower instances where the scope of the appeal proceedings is limited, in particular where the appellate court cannot review the merits of the case, including a review of the facts and an assessment of the proportionality between the fault and the sanction (see, for instance, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 26, § 60, the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 19, § 36, and the Diennet judgment cited above, p. 15, § 34, all relating to disciplinary proceedings falling under the civil head of Article 6 § 1; see also the Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 20, § 39, concerning good order in court proceedings falling under the criminal head of Article 6 § 1).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

• BVerfG, 14.03.2012 - 2 BvR 2405/11

  Zum Grundsatz der Verfahrensöffentlichkeit - hier: Verbot des Tragens von …

  Sie ist außerdem ein Mittel, um das Vertrauen in die Gerichtsbarkeit zu sichern (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1983 - 8273/78 -, Axen/Deutschland, Tz. 25, EGMR-E 2, 321 ; EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1984 - 8209/78 -, Sutter/Schweiz, Tz. 26, EGMR-E 2, 345 ; EGMR, Urteil vom 14. November 2000 - 35115/97 -, Riepan/Österreich, Tz. 27; EGMR, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2007 - 66941/01 -, Zagorodnikov/Russland, Tz. 20; EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2007 - 64056/00 -, Volkov/Russland, Tz. 25; EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2008 - 28617/03 -, Belashev/Russland, Tz. 79).

  Daher kann es bei erheblichen tatsächlichen Zugangshindernissen erforderlich sein, zur Gewährleistung der Öffentlichkeit Ausgleichsmaßnahmen zu treffen (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 14. November 2000 - 35115/97 -, Riepan/Österreich, Tz. 27 ff.; EGMR, Urteil vom 29. November 2007 - 9852/03, 13413/04 -, Hummatov/Aserbaidschan, Tz. 143 f.).

  Allerdings wird der öffentliche Charakter einer Verhandlung nicht schon dadurch berührt, dass sich mögliche Zuschauer etwa bestimmten Identitätsüberprüfungen und möglichen Sicherheitsüberprüfungen unterziehen müssen (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 14. November 2000 - 35115/97 -, Riepan/Österreich, Tz. 28; EGMR, Urteil vom 29. November 2007 - 9852/03, 13413/04 -, Hummatov/Aserbaidschan, Tz. 143).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.10.2021 - C-245/20

  Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Schutz natürlicher …

  60 In diesem Sinne im Zusammenhang mit Art. 6 Abs. 1 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK), vgl. Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) vom 8. Dezember 1983, Axen/Deutschland (CE:ECHR:1983:1208JUD000827378, § 32), vom 22. Februar 1984, Sutter/Schweiz (CE:ECHR:1984:0222JUD000820978, § 26), vom 14. November 2000, Riepan/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2000:1114JUD003511597, § 27), vom 12. Juli 2001, Malhous/Tschechische Republik (CE:ECHR:2001:0712JUD003307196, § 62), und vom 28. Oktober 2010, Krestovskiy/Russland (CE:ECHR:2010:1028JUD001404003, § 24).
• BVerwG, 19.09.2023 - 9 B 14.23

  Zum Merkmal der Öffentlichkeit im Sinne des § 169 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GVG

  Vielmehr verlangt der Grundsatz der Öffentlichkeit nach der Rechtsprechung des EGMR, dass die Öffentlichkeit Informationen über Zeit und Ort des Termins erhalten kann und der Ort für die Öffentlichkeit leicht zugänglich ist (BVerwG, Beschluss vom 14. Juni 2016 - 4 B 45.15 - juris Rn. 14 unter Hinweis auf EGMR, Urteile vom 14. November 2000 - Nr. 35115/97 [ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:1114JUD003511597], Riepan/Österreich - Rn. 29 …und vom 29. November 2007 - Nr. 9852/03, 13413/04 [ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1129JUD000985203], Hummatov/Aserbaidschan - Rn. 144).

 
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, while the Court agrees that Article 6 § 1 states a general rule that civil proceedings, inter alia, should take place in public, it does not find it inconsistent with this provision for a State to designate an entire class of case as an exception to the general rule where considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or where required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 42, §§ 87-88), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see, for example, Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2324/08

  SOCIETE BOUYGUES TELECOM c. FRANCE

  Se fondant sur l'arrêt Riepan c. Autriche (no 35115/97, CEDH 2000-XII), elle estime que, même si la décision du Conseil de la concurrence a été soumise à un contrôle ultérieur de la cour d'appel de Paris et de la Cour de cassation, ces contrôles ne suffisent pas à compenser une telle atteinte au procès équitable puisque ces juridictions ne disposent ni des pouvoirs d'enquête, ni des pouvoirs d'instruction dévolus au Conseil de la concurrence.

  Le Conseil de la concurrence étant une autorité administrative indépendante, l'exception tirée de ce qu'un « procès pénal ordinaire'exige des débats publics en première instance et en appel (Riepan c. Autriche, no 35115/97, §§ 40-41, CEDH 2000-XII) ne saurait s'appliquer.

• OVG Sachsen-Anhalt, 31.03.2017 - 4 L 93/16

  Aushangerfordernis für die Öffentlichkeit einer Verhandlung vor dem …

  Die Ausführungen des EGMR im Urteil vom 14. November 2000 (35115/97, Riepan/Österreich) geben zu einer anderen Beurteilung keinen Anlass.
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Nor did the fact that any potential spectators would have had to undergo certain identity and possibly security checks in itself deprive the hearing of its public nature (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 26986/03

  GALSTYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court considers that the right to a public hearing would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed courts to hold hearings which were public in form but would not be in reality accessible to the public, including because of the time and location of the hearing (see, mutatis mutandis, Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 29-31, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

  KAPLAN v. AUSTRIA

  Further, as regards civil proceedings, the Court does not find it inconsistent with Article 6 § 1 for a State to designate an entire class of cases as an exception to the general rule of public hearings if this is considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, §§ 87-88; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-III), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII; and B. and P., cited above).
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05

  YEVDOKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In such cases, the State is under an obligation to take compensatory measures to ensure that the public and the media are duly informed about the place of the hearing and are granted effective access (see Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, §§ 55-63, 13 March 2014, and Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 30, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  VLADIMIR VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 13772/05

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 54645/00

  OSINGER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19

  MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 30373/13

  MRAOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  LUCHANINOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 43874/98

  LINNEKOGEL c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99

  TOEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 39234/08

  FILYUTKIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  GRYAZNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 14040/03

  KRESTOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 399/02

  BOCELLARI ET RIZZA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 38532/02

  UDOROVIC c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 18498/04

  KHRABROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 20437/05

  SHAGIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 24849/05

  SERGEY ZAYTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 23493/12

  BAZANOVA AND MUKHACHEV v. RUSSIA