Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHMIDT v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 39657/98

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten (Bedeutung der Rechtsanwälte für das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 513/05

  With regard to disciplinary proceedings, the Court has already found that the mere threat of an ex post facto review of criticism voiced by counsel is difficult to reconcile with his duty to defend the interest of his client and would have a "chilling effect" on the practice of his profession (see Nikula, cited above, § 54, and Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 44, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 513/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 34875/07

  ROLAND DUMAS c. FRANCE

  La Cour rappelle que des propos critiquant la stratégie choisie par un procureur pour mener l'accusation doivent être protégés en raison de la qualité de ce dernier, considéré comme un « adversaire de l'accusé" (Nikula et Lesnik, précités ; Schmidt c. Autriche, no 513/05, § 39, 17 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 11553/11

  PADLEWSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the Court's case-law (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Malek v. Austria, no. 60553/00, § 48-49, 12 June 2003; Schmidt v. Austria, no. 513/05, § 24-29, 17 July 2008; Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, § 44-50, 27 January 2015; and Gollner v. Austria, no. 49455/99, § 24-25, 17 January 2002), the Court finds that the overall duration of the proceedings exceeded a "reasonable time".
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 18312/08

  ZDRAVKO STANEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  It has also dealt with cases concerning disparaging statements against judges, public prosecutors, expert witnesses or police officers made by defence counsel in the course of judicial proceedings (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, ECHR 2002-II (public prosecutor); Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, ECHR 2003-XI (police officer); Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, ECHR 2005-XIII (judges); Schmidt v. Austria, no. 513/05, 17 July 2008 (public prosecutor); and Fuchs v. Germany (dec.), no. 29222/11, 27 January 2015 (expert witness)), As in those cases, the Court will examine the proportionality of the interference with the applicant's rights by looking at the nature and exact manner of communication of the statement, the context in which it was made, the extent to which it affected the judge, and the severity of the sanction imposed on the applicant.