Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1990,15468
EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87 (https://dejure.org/1990,15468)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.10.1990 - 12794/87 (https://dejure.org/1990,15468)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Oktober 1990 - 12794/87 (https://dejure.org/1990,15468)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1990,15468) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HUBER c. SUISSE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 5-3 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HUBER v. SWITZERLAND

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 1991, 1403
  • Serie A Nr. 188
 
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 ... (41)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

    Schiesser ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    "In this connection, the Federal Court has held that the District Attorney of the Canton of Zürich exercises judicial power (ATF 102 Ia 180, confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A no. 34,...; see also ATF 107 Ia 254).

    Its Delegate invited the Court to depart from the Schiesser judgment of 4 December 1979 (Series A no. 34), which also concerned the status and duties of the District Attorney of the Canton of Zürich.

    However, I had in mind that the Schiesser judgment (Series A no. 34) would be confirmed, with some of its ambiguous elements removed, rather than overruled.

  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    Clearly the Convention does not rule out the possibility of the judicial officer who orders the detention carrying out other duties, but his impartiality is capable of appearing open to doubt (see the Pauwels judgment cited above, Series A no. 135, pp. 18-19, para. 38, and, mutatis mutandis, the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, para. 31, the De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, para. 30 and the Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 23, para. 52 in fine) if he is entitled to intervene in the subsequent criminal proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority.

    It is exactly for that reason that, with other colleagues, I was unable to agree with the majority in the Hauschildt case (Series A no. 154, separate opinion, p. 30).

  • EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

    PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    Clearly the Convention does not rule out the possibility of the judicial officer who orders the detention carrying out other duties, but his impartiality is capable of appearing open to doubt (see the Pauwels judgment cited above, Series A no. 135, pp. 18-19, para. 38, and, mutatis mutandis, the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, para. 31, the De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, para. 30 and the Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 23, para. 52 in fine) if he is entitled to intervene in the subsequent criminal proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority.

    However, if a legal system provides for the separation as an additional guarantee of objectivity and impartiality, the successive exercise of the function of judgment by the same organ of the judiciary which previously was entrusted with the prosecution or the investigation in the same case infringes Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention (Piersack, Series A no. 53; De Cubber, Series A no. 86).

     
  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    Clearly the Convention does not rule out the possibility of the judicial officer who orders the detention carrying out other duties, but his impartiality is capable of appearing open to doubt (see the Pauwels judgment cited above, Series A no. 135, pp. 18-19, para. 38, and, mutatis mutandis, the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, para. 31, the De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, para. 30 and the Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 23, para. 52 in fine) if he is entitled to intervene in the subsequent criminal proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority.

    However, if a legal system provides for the separation as an additional guarantee of objectivity and impartiality, the successive exercise of the function of judgment by the same organ of the judiciary which previously was entrusted with the prosecution or the investigation in the same case infringes Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention (Piersack, Series A no. 53; De Cubber, Series A no. 86).

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    The formula was borrowed from the Neumeister judgment (Series A no. 8, p. 44), where it related to a court within the meaning of Article 5 para.
  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

    DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    3 (art. 5-3) [which] is to establish a system of judicial review and, by that means, to give specific guarantees to persons deprived of their liberty" - in the words of Judge Ryssdal in his dissenting opinion in the Schiesser judgment (Series A no. 35, p. 19) - is attained.
  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

    LAMY c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    Even assuming that the applicant did sustain any such damage, the present judgment provides her with sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Lamy judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, p. 19, para. 42).
  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9362/81

    VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    In several judgments which post-date the Schiesser judgment of 4 December 1979 and which concern Netherlands legislation on the arrest and detention of military personnel (the de Jong, Baljet and van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 24, para. 49; the van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe judgment of the same date, Series A no. 78, p. 19, para. 44; and the Duinhof and Duijf judgment of the same date, Series A no. 79, p. 17, para. 38), the Court found that the auditeur-militair, who had ordered the detention of the applicants, could also be called upon to assume, in the same case, the role of prosecuting authority after referral of the case to the Military Court.
  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9626/81

    DUINHOF AND DUIJF v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    In several judgments which post-date the Schiesser judgment of 4 December 1979 and which concern Netherlands legislation on the arrest and detention of military personnel (the de Jong, Baljet and van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 24, para. 49; the van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe judgment of the same date, Series A no. 78, p. 19, para. 44; and the Duinhof and Duijf judgment of the same date, Series A no. 79, p. 17, para. 38), the Court found that the auditeur-militair, who had ordered the detention of the applicants, could also be called upon to assume, in the same case, the role of prosecuting authority after referral of the case to the Military Court.
  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

    DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
    In several judgments which post-date the Schiesser judgment of 4 December 1979 and which concern Netherlands legislation on the arrest and detention of military personnel (the de Jong, Baljet and van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 24, para. 49; the van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe judgment of the same date, Series A no. 78, p. 19, para. 44; and the Duinhof and Duijf judgment of the same date, Series A no. 79, p. 17, para. 38), the Court found that the auditeur-militair, who had ordered the detention of the applicants, could also be called upon to assume, in the same case, the role of prosecuting authority after referral of the case to the Military Court.
  • 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, 05.04.2001 - 26899/95

    H.B. c. SUISSE

    Après avoir résumé sa propre jurisprudence et celle de la Cour en l'affaire Huber c. Suisse (arrêt du 23 octobre 1990, série A n° 188), le Tribunal conclut que le juge d'instruction était un magistrat indépendant et impartial habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires au sens de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention, notamment pour les motifs suivants:.

    Le Gouvernement soutient que le rôle du juge d'instruction du canton de Soleure satisfait aux exigences de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention et se distingue, en particulier, de la situation qui se présentait en l'affaire Huber c. Suisse concernant le procureur de district du canton de Zurich (arrêt du 23 octobre 1990, série A n° 188).

    Le magistrat doit entendre personnellement l'individu traduit devant lui et se prononcer selon des critères juridiques sur l'existence de raisons justifiant la détention et, en leur absence, il doit avoir le pouvoir d'ordonner de manière contraignante l'élargissement (arrêts Assenov et autres c. Bulgarie du 28 octobre 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VIII, p. 3298, § 146, et Huber c. Suisse du 23 octobre 1990, série A n° 188, p. 18, § 43).

  • EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

    Gesetzlichkeitsprinzip (Vorhersehbarkeit der Strafdrohung und Ermessen des …

    The court further pointed out that unlike in the case of Huber v. Switzerland (23 October 1990, Series A no. 188), the Attorney General (in his role as public prosecutor) in Malta did not investigate the circumstances of the crime and did not have the power to issue detention orders.

    Indeed the Attorney General did not undertake the investigation of the crime, nor did he have the power to issue a detention order (with reference to Huber v. Switzerland, 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188), or have any other judicial function, but exclusively performed the function of prosecutor.

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