Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,21873
EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13 (https://dejure.org/2014,21873)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.07.2014 - 8162/13 (https://dejure.org/2014,21873)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juli 2014 - 8162/13 (https://dejure.org/2014,21873)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,21873) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13
    An interference must also strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 69).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 36455/02

    GUROV v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13
    This includes, in particular, provisions concerning the independence of the members of a tribunal, the length of their term of office, impartiality and the existence of procedural safeguards (see, for example, Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII, and Gurov v. Moldova, no. 36455/02, § 36, 11 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

    WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13
    The Court has held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

    Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13
    The Court reiterates that under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention a tribunal must always be "established by law." This expression reflects the principle of the rule of law, which is inherent in the system of protection established by the Convention and its Protocols (see, for example, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

    COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13
    This includes, in particular, provisions concerning the independence of the members of a tribunal, the length of their term of office, impartiality and the existence of procedural safeguards (see, for example, Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII, and Gurov v. Moldova, no. 36455/02, § 36, 11 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 59506/00

    GEORGIOS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13
    In respect of the applicants" argument that the judges had refused to hear witnesses capable of substantiating their allegations, the Court notes that it is for the national courts to assess the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce (see Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece, no. 59506/00, § 35, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts)) and that in the present case a clear explanation was given by the domestic court (see paragraph 19 above) as to why it had deemed superfluous the hearing of any witnesses.
  • EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 4313/04

    GORGUILADZE c. GEORGIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13
    "Law", within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, comprises not only legislation providing for the establishment and competence of judicial organs (see, inter alia, Lavents, cited above, § 114), but also any other provision of domestic law which, if breached, would render the participation of one or more judges in the examination of a case irregular (see Gorguiladzé v. Georgia, no. 4313/04, § 68, 20 October 2009, and Pandjikidzé and Others v. Georgia, no. 30323/02, § 104, 27 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 26374/18

    GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND

    In a number of cases the Court held that it could not question the interpretation of domestic law by a domestic court unless there had been a "flagrant violation" or a "flagrant breach" of domestic law (see, specifically with respect to the requirement that a tribunal must be established "by law", Lavents, cited above, § 114; Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-III; DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, § 61, 5 October 2010; Kontalexis v. Greece, no. 59000/08, § 39, 31 May 2011; ? orgic v. Serbia, no. 34973/06, § 63, 3 November 2011; Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 8162/13, § 75, 8 July 2014; and Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary, no. 57774/13, § 50, 12 January 2016; see also paragraph 100 of the present judgment).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 26374/18

    GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON c. ISLANDE

    That phrase reflects, in particular, the principle of the rule of law and covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a tribunal, but also the composition of the bench in each case and any other provision of domestic law which, if breached, would render the participation of one or more judges in the examination of a case irregular, including, in particular, provisions concerning the independence and impartiality of the members of the court concerned (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 8 July 2014, Biagioli v. San Marino, CE:ECHR:2014:0708DEC000816213, §§ 72 to 74, and ECtHR, 2 May 2019, Pasquini v. San Marino, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, §§ 100 and 101 and the case-law cited).
  • EuGH, 22.02.2022 - C-562/21

    Ablehnung der Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls: der Gerichtshof

    Zum anderen hat der Gerichtshof in Bezug auf das Erfordernis eines zuvor durch Gesetz errichteten Gerichts unter Bezugnahme auf die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 6 EMRK (EGMR, 8. Juli 2014, Biagioli/San Marino, CE:ECHR:2014:0708DEC000816213, §§ 72 bis 74, und EGMR, 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, EU:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, §§ 100 und 101 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung) ausgeführt, dass der Ausdruck "auf Gesetz beruhend" insbesondere das Rechtstaatsprinzip widerspiegelt.
  • EuGH, 26.03.2020 - C-542/18

    Réexamen Simpson/ Rat - Überprüfung der Urteile des Gerichts der Europäischen

    Dieser Ausdruck spiegelt insbesondere das Rechtsstaatsprinzip wider und umfasst nicht nur die Rechtsgrundlage für die Existenz des Gerichts, sondern auch die Zusammensetzung des Spruchkörpers in jeder Rechtssache sowie alle weiteren Vorschriften des innerstaatlichen Rechts, deren Nichtbeachtung die Teilnahme eines oder mehrerer Richter an der Verhandlung über die Rechtssache vorschriftswidrig macht, was insbesondere Vorschriften über die Unabhängigkeit und die Unparteilichkeit der Mitglieder des betreffenden Gerichts einschließt (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 8. Juli 2014, Biagioli/San Marino, CE:ECHR:2014:0708DEC000816213, §§ 72 bis 74, und 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, §§ 100 und 101 sowie die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 63246/10

    NICHOLAS v. CYPRUS

    It cannot be overlooked that Cyprus is a small country, with smaller firms and a smaller number of judges than larger jurisdictions; therefore, this situation is likely to arise more often (see, mutandis mutandis, Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 8162/13, § 80, 8 July 2014, and Micallef, cited above, § 102; compare Ramljak, cited above, § 39).

    The applicant did not know whether they had actually been involved in the case (compare Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, § 168, 26 July 2011, and Bellizzi v. Malta (dec.), no. 8162/13, § 61, 21 June 2011) and whether they had a financial interest connected to its outcome.

  • EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

    PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

    Relying on Biagioli v. San Marino ((dec.), no. 8162/13, § 71, ECHR 8 July 2014) and Savino and Others v. Italy (nos. 17214/05 and 2 others, § 94, 28 April 2009) the applicant submitted that a tribunal had to be established by law, so that the latter did not depend on the discretion of the executive or the judicial authorities.
  • EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 49812/09

    VEGOTEX INTERNATIONAL S.A. c. BELGIQUE

    Les affaires Biagioli c. Saint-Marin ((déc.), no 8162/13, 8 juillet 2014) et Chim et Przwieczerski (arrêt précité) ne présentent guère de pertinence en l'espèce.
  • EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 49812/09

    VEGOTEX INTERNATIONAL S.A. c. BELGIQUE

    Ces principes, qui constituent des éléments essentiels des notions de sécurité juridique et de protection de la confiance légitime des justiciables, trouvent également à s'appliquer en matière pénale (Scoppola c. Italie (no 2) [GC], no 10249/03, § 132, 17 septembre 2009, et, dans le même sens, Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 8162/13, §§ 92-94, 8 juillet 2014, et Chim et Przywieczerski c. Pologne, nos 36661/07 et 38433/07, §§ 199-207, 12 avril 2018).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

    PELEKI c. GRÈCE

    La Cour rappelle aussi que le fait que des actes susceptibles de conduire à une sanction disciplinaire constituent également des infractions n'est pas suffisant pour considérer qu'une personne responsable selon le droit disciplinaire est « accusée'd'un crime (Rola c. Slovénie, nos 12096/14 et 39335/16, § 56, 4 juin 2019 ; avec référence à Müller-Hartburg c. Autriche, no 47195/06, 19 février 2013, et à Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 8162/13, 8 juillet 2014).
  • EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 30836/07

    BAHAETTIN UZAN v. TURKEY

    The Court considers, in the light of the foregoing, that there is no evidence in the case file to hold that the establishment of the Istanbul 8th Assize Court entailed an undue interference with the judiciary on the part of the executive that undermined the purpose of the right to a "tribunal established by law" within the meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 8162/13, § 79, ECHR 8 July 2014, and Pasquini v. San Marino, no. 50956/16, § 110, 2 May 2019; see also the findings confirming the independence and impartiality of that court from the executive in paragraphs 61-68 below).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht