Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEXANDRU MARIAN IANCU v. ROMANIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  IANCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 63226/00

  CRAXI III contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 60858/15

  As to the objective test of impartiality, relying on the cases of Margus v. Croatia ([GC], no. 4455/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and Craxi III v. Italy ((dec.), no. 63226/00, 14 June 2001), the Government contended that the mere participation of a judge in previous proceedings concerning the applicant could not in and of itself raise any doubts as to his impartiality.

  In its case-law the Court has held that the mere fact that a trial judge has made previous decisions concerning the same offence cannot be held as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 50, Series A no. 154, and Romero Martin v. Spain (dec.), no. 32045/03, 12 June 2006 concerning pre-trial decisions; Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 97, Series A no. 13; Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 38, Series A no. 325-A; and Vaillant v. France, no. 30609/04, §§ 29-35, 18 December 2008, concerning the situation of judges to whom a case was remitted after a decision had been set aside or quashed by a higher court; Thomann v. Switzerland, 10 June 1996, §§ 35-36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, concerning the retrial of an accused convicted in absentia; and Craxi III v. Italy (dec.), no. 63226/00, 14 June 2001, and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, § 59, Reports 1996-III, concerning the situation of judges who had participated in proceedings against co-offenders).

• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 60858/15

  He pointed out that the Court had previously held in a number of cases (see, for example, De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, and Altay v. Turkey, no. 22279/93, 22 May 2001) that even appearances may be of a certain importance in this context.
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 60858/15

  In its case-law the Court has held that the mere fact that a trial judge has made previous decisions concerning the same offence cannot be held as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 50, Series A no. 154, and Romero Martin v. Spain (dec.), no. 32045/03, 12 June 2006 concerning pre-trial decisions; Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 97, Series A no. 13; Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 38, Series A no. 325-A; and Vaillant v. France, no. 30609/04, §§ 29-35, 18 December 2008, concerning the situation of judges to whom a case was remitted after a decision had been set aside or quashed by a higher court; Thomann v. Switzerland, 10 June 1996, §§ 35-36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, concerning the retrial of an accused convicted in absentia; and Craxi III v. Italy (dec.), no. 63226/00, 14 June 2001, and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, § 59, Reports 1996-III, concerning the situation of judges who had participated in proceedings against co-offenders).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 60858/15

  In its case-law the Court has held that the mere fact that a trial judge has made previous decisions concerning the same offence cannot be held as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 50, Series A no. 154, and Romero Martin v. Spain (dec.), no. 32045/03, 12 June 2006 concerning pre-trial decisions; Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 97, Series A no. 13; Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 38, Series A no. 325-A; and Vaillant v. France, no. 30609/04, §§ 29-35, 18 December 2008, concerning the situation of judges to whom a case was remitted after a decision had been set aside or quashed by a higher court; Thomann v. Switzerland, 10 June 1996, §§ 35-36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, concerning the retrial of an accused convicted in absentia; and Craxi III v. Italy (dec.), no. 63226/00, 14 June 2001, and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, § 59, Reports 1996-III, concerning the situation of judges who had participated in proceedings against co-offenders).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 60858/15

  In its case-law the Court has held that the mere fact that a trial judge has made previous decisions concerning the same offence cannot be held as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 50, Series A no. 154, and Romero Martin v. Spain (dec.), no. 32045/03, 12 June 2006 concerning pre-trial decisions; Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 97, Series A no. 13; Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 38, Series A no. 325-A; and Vaillant v. France, no. 30609/04, §§ 29-35, 18 December 2008, concerning the situation of judges to whom a case was remitted after a decision had been set aside or quashed by a higher court; Thomann v. Switzerland, 10 June 1996, §§ 35-36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, concerning the retrial of an accused convicted in absentia; and Craxi III v. Italy (dec.), no. 63226/00, 14 June 2001, and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, § 59, Reports 1996-III, concerning the situation of judges who had participated in proceedings against co-offenders).

• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 1128/17

  Meng ./. Deutschland - Konventionsverletzung durch Beteiligung eines nicht …

  44.  Unter Unparteilichkeit ist das Nichtvorliegen von Voreingenommenheit oder Befangenheit zu verstehen (siehe u.a. Denisov ./. Ukraine (GK), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 76639/11, Rdnr. 61, 25. September 2018, und Alexandru Marian Iancu ./. Rumänien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 60858/15, Rdnr. 57, 4. Februar 2020).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 46/15

  NASTASE c. ROUMANIE

  En outre, elle observe que la demande d'abstention de la juge I.B. a été examinée par une formation de jugement de la Haute Cour, qui, après avoir comparé les objets des deux affaires, a rendu une décision motivée en expliquant que les deux affaires portaient sur des questions différentes et que les deux juges ne s'étaient pas prononcées sur l'affaire concernant le requérant (paragraphe 68 ci-dessus ; voir, mutatis mutandis, Alexandru Marian Iancu c. Roumanie, no 60858/15, § 70, 4 février 2020).
• EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 15549/16

  GEORGE-LAVINIU GHIURAU c. ROUMANIE

  Les dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce du code de procédure pénale (« le CPP ") en vigueur au moment des faits sont présentées dans l'arrêt Alexandru Marian Iancu c. Roumanie (no 60858/15, § 38, 4 février 2020, non définitif).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 8135/15

  POPA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Those challenges had been examined and rejected in reasoned decisions, which were taken in compliance with the provisions of Article 67(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the situation complained of was not listed among the grounds for disqualification of judges in criminal proceedings as provided by law (see Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania, no. 60858/15, § 38, 4 February 2020).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  VOICULESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The Court further notes that those challenges had been examined and rejected in reasoned decisions, in compliance with the provisions of Article 67(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the situation complained of was not listed among the grounds for disqualification of judges in criminal proceedings as provided by law (see Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania, no. 60858/15, § 38, 4 February 2020).