Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PIERSACK c. BELGIQUE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Satisfaction équitable réservée (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 15.07.1980 - 8692/79
- EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 8692/79
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 53
Wird zitiert von ... (133) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
The avocat général rejected the first interpretation, which he described as "restrictive", in favour of the second, the "extensive", interpretation; he relied notably on Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (account to be taken of the object and purpose) and on the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970 (Series A no. 11, pp. 14-15, § 25 in fine).In this area, even appearances may be of a certain importance (see the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 17, § 31).
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
(a) As regards the first approach, the Court notes that the applicant is pleased to pay tribute to Mr. Van de Walle's personal impartiality; it does not itself have any cause for doubt on this score and indeed personal impartiality is to be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 25, § 58). - EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
In order to resolve this issue, it would have to be determined whether the phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of the "tribunal" - as to which there can be no dispute on this occasion (Article 98 of the Belgian Constitution) - but also the composition of the bench in each case; if so, whether the European Court can review the manner in which national courts - such as the Belgian Court of Cassation in its judgment of 21 February 1979 (see paragraph 17 above) - interpret and apply on this point their domestic law; and, finally, whether that law should not itself be in conformity with the Convention and notably the requirement of impartiality that appears in Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) (cf., in the context of Article 5 (art. 5), the Winterwerp judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. - EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
19-20, §§ 45-46, and the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, pp.
- BVerfG, 22.03.2018 - 2 BvR 780/16
Vorschriften zum Einsatz von Verwaltungsrichtern auf Zeit sind mit der Verfassung …
Zur Unabhängigkeit gehören danach die grundsätzliche Unabsetzbarkeit, die Unversetzbarkeit und die Weisungsfreiheit der Richter sowie der Schutz gegen Einflussnahme von außen, insbesondere durch Exekutive oder Parteien (vgl. EGMR, Piersack v. Belgium, Urteil vom 1. Oktober 1982, Nr. 8692/79, Rn. 27; Kadubec v. Slovakia…, Urteil vom 2. September 1998, Nr. 27061/95, Rn. 56).Die Tätigkeit von Beamten in einem richterlichen Amt ist mit Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK nicht von vornherein unvereinbar; dies gilt erst recht für eine aufeinanderfolgende Tätigkeit in den verschiedenen Staatsgewalten (vgl. EGMR, Ringeisen v. Austria…, Urteil vom 16. Juli 1971, Nr. 2614/65, Rn. 97; Ettl and others v. Austria…, Urteil vom 23. April 1987, Nr. 9273/81, Rn. 38; McGonnell v. The United Kingdom…, Urteil vom 8. Februar 2000, Nr. 28488/95, Rn. 51 f.; Piersack v. Belgium, Urteil vom 1. Oktober 1982, Nr. 8692/79, Rn. 27 f.; Sacilor Lormines v. France…, Urteil vom 9. November 2006, Nr. 65411/01, Rn. 72 ff.).
- BVerfG, 08.11.2022 - 2 BvR 2480/10
Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend das Rechtsschutzsystem des Europäischen …
Die Richter genießen auf dieser Grundlage einen strukturellen Schutz gegen sachwidrige äußere Einflussnahmen (vgl. EGMR, Piersack v. Belgium, Urteil vom 1. Oktober 1982, Nr. 8692/79, § 27). - EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …
Such a situation seriously affects the confidence which the courts must inspire in a democratic society (see, mutatis mutandis , Piersack v. Belgium , judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, § 30).
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17056/06
MICALLEF v. MALTA
Pour que les tribunaux inspirent au public la confiance indispensable, il faut de surcroît tenir compte de considérations de caractère organique (Piersack c. Belgique, 1er octobre 1982, § 30 d), série A no 53). - EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10
GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY
In the Court's opinion, this amounts to the consecutive exercise of investigative and judicial functions within one body; in criminal matters such a combination of functions is not compatible with the requirements of impartiality set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular and mutatis mutandis, Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, §§ 30-32, Series A no. 53, and De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, §§ 24-30, Series A no. 86, in which the Court concluded that the "tribunal" had lacked objective impartiality, in the first case on the ground that an assize court had been presided over by a judge who had previously acted as head of the section of the Brussels public prosecutor's department which had been responsible for dealing with the accused's case; and, in the second, on account of the successive exercise of the functions of investigating judge and trial judge by one and the same person in one and the same case). - EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90
BULUT v. AUSTRIA
1 (art. 6-1) is being determined, regard must be had not only to the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case - the subjective approach - but also whether he afforded sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect - the objective approach (see, among many other authorities, the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 14, para. 30).2 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (paragraph 18) required that Judge Schaumburger withdraw of his own motion in accordance with our Court's case-law (see the following judgments: Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, para. 30; De Cubber, previously cited, p. 14, para. 26; and Hauschildt, previously cited, p. 21, para. 48): "... any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw.
[7] Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 6, paras.
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 8692/79
PIERSACK v. BELGIUM (ARTICLE 50)
Par un arrêt du 1er octobre 1982, 1a Cour a relevé une infraction à l'article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) de la Convention: l'impartialité du "tribunal" qui avait statué, le 10 novembre 1978, "sur le bien-fondé" d'une "accusation en matière pénale" dirigée contre l'intéressé, à savoir la cour d'assises du Brabant, "pouvait paraître sujette à caution" (série A no 53, paragraphes 28-32 des motifs et point 1 du dispositif, pp. 13-17).Il a en outre exprimé l'opinion que le rejet, le 21 février 1979, du pourvoi de l'intéressé contre l'arrêt litigieux (série A no 53, p. 10, § 17) n'empêchait pas la Cour suprême d'appliquer ledit article, notamment parce qu'elle avait ignoré à l'époque "deux circonstances" sur lesquelles "la Cour européenne appuie (...) sa décision": "d'une part, M. Van de Walle, président de la cour d'assises, avait jusqu'en novembre 1977 dirigé la section du parquet de Bruxelles chargée des poursuites contre Piersack (...)"; "d'autre part, en cette qualité, [il] avait effectivement joué un certain rôle dans la procédure" (ibidem, pp. 15-16, § 31).
Le président du tribunal de première instance de Mons a décliné sa compétence le 7 septembre 1983, faute de "voie de fait (...) de la part des défendeurs": il a constaté qu'à la suite de l'arrêt du 18 mai 1983 le demandeur était "retombé" sous "le régime de la détention préventive"; la base légale de cette dernière résidait dans l'arrêt de la chambre des mises en accusation du 16 juin 1978 (série A no 53, p. 7, § 13), arrêt que la Cour de cassation n'avait point annulé.
En rejetant, le 21 février 1979, 1e pourvoi formé contre l'arrêt de la cour d'assises du Brabant (série A no 53, p. 10, § 57), la Cour de cassation a condamné le demandeur aux frais.
Ce montant se révèle pourtant exagéré car, comme le rappelle le Gouvernement, une partie seulement du pourvoi concernait le problème que la Commission puis la Cour ont eu à examiner (série A no 53, p. 7, § 15).
- EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12
Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention
In the now classic wording of the Campbell and Fell judgment: "[In determining whether a body can be considered to be "independent" - notably of the executive and of the parties to the case (see, inter alia, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, § 55) -, the Court has had regard to the manner of appointment of its members and the duration of their term of office (ibid., § 57), the existence of guarantees against outside pressures (see the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, § 27) and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence (see the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 31)" (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 78, Series A no. 80). - EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE
In this respect, it is unnecessary to define the precise role played by the judges in question during the investigative stage (see, mutatis mutandis, the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, para. 31). - EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98
KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
The terms themselves were first used in cases in which individual judges had been involved in the same legal proceedings at two different stages and in two different capacities (see, for example, Piersack v. Belgium, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, and Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154). - EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
DIENNET v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
HUBER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
- EuG, 27.03.2014 - T-56/09
Das Gericht setzt die im Rahmen eines Kartells auf dem europäischen …
- EuG, 11.03.1999 - T-156/94
Aristrain / Kommission
- EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86
BORGERS v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
- EuG, 14.05.1998 - T-348/94
Enso Española / Kommission
- EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.09.2008 - C-308/07
Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso / Parlament - Rechtsmittel - Europäisches Parlament - …
- EGMR, 29.08.1997 - 22714/93
WORM c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 06.01.2010 - 74181/01
VERA FERNANDEZ-HUIDOBRO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02
DRIZA c. ALBANIE
- EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 28599/07
EL MOTASSADEQ v. GERMANY
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.09.2002 - C-196/99
Aristrain / Kommission
- EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87
PADOVANI v. ITALY
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 62793/10
DUNN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 5242/04
DUBUS S.A. c. FRANCE
- EKMR, 09.12.1987 - 11831/85
SCHMID c. AUTRICHE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 31.03.2009 - C-385/07
Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland / Kommission - Beherrschende Stellung …
- EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 22431/20
UGULAVA v. GEORGIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 22330/05
OLUJIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05
Taxquet ./. Belgien
- EGMR, 25.06.2007 - 28599/07
Rüge eines Al Qaida-Terroristen bzgl. seiner Verurteilung wegen Mitgliedschaft in …
- EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 38191/12
A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 23614/08
HENRYK URBAN AND RYSZARD URBAN v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 46530/09
URGESI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 16358/18
ANGERJÄRV AND GREINOMAN v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 27154/95
D.N. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89
SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16
PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96
BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 68954/13
EDIZIONI DEL ROMA SOCIETA COOPERATIVA A.R.L. ET EDIZIONI DEL ROMA S.R.L. c. …
- EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93
DE HAAN c. PAYS-BAS
- EGMR, 27.01.2004 - 73797/01
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Anwendbarkeit: Begriff der strafrechtlichen …
- EKMR, 05.09.1990 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18
SCERRI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 56134/08
KORZENIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03
WARSICKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 58138/09
MIKHAIL MIRONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01
MEZNARIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87
SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16
OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 50104/10
SVILENGACANIN AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05
STURUA v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 13.06.2013 - 22875/02
ROMENSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09
MARIUSZ LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.07.2011 - 12748/06
PANYIK v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 31351/06
STEULET c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98
PAVLETIC v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 24954/94
TIERCE ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 25.05.2000 - 38432/97
THOMA c. LUXEMBOURG
- EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 24430/94
LANZ v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 61344/16
KARRAR c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 39234/08
FILYUTKIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 48158/11
X ET Y c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
BELLIZZI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04
DOROZHKO AND POZHARSKIY v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98
LEHTINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 31551/96
STOICESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 57836/00
MELLORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.01.2001 - 39996/98
OUENDENO contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 31611/96
NIKULA v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 35396/97
STEFANELLI contre la REPUBLIQUE DE SAINT-MARIN
- EKMR, 09.10.1990 - 14396/88
F. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 40242/12
DI GREGORIO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 54574/07
PAUNOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10
ZIOBRO v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 29995/08
TOZICZKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33530/06
POHOSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 52999/08
HANIF AND KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 32263/03
TOCONO AND PROFESORII PROMETEISTI v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 02.05.2007 - 74182/01
SAIZ OCEJA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 23.11.2004 - 54857/00
PUOLITAIVAL AND PIRTTIAHO v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 27549/02
JERINO' GIUSEPPE c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 64174/00
GUIRAUD contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 33355/96
POPESCU NASTA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 57861/00
ABSANDZE contre la GEORGIE
- EGMR, 05.03.2002 - 61281/00
MENDEZ GUTIERREZ et PINDADO MARTINEZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 49104/99
PUELINCKX contre la BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 51541/99
TEYSSEYRE contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 34129/96
SANDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 35430/97
ERCOLANI contre SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 42268/98
J.-M. F. contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 32411/96
SOJUS TRADE COMPANY GmbH AND DEUTSCHE CONSULTING GmbH v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 37439/97
AGGA v. GREECE
- EKMR, 14.03.1990 - 13778/88
THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9362/81
VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9626/81
DUINHOF AND DUIJF v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 31208/13
MORAIS c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 10762/04
CACESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 8400/07
SZYPUSZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 13729/03
LAFONT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 56802/00
BAUMET c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 30865/96
JASINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 55450/00
NEGOESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.09.2003 - 14180/03
RANSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.01.2002 - 40028/98
DELAGE et MAGISTRELLO contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.12.2001 - 37372/97
WALSTON v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 50595/99
REVOLDINI ET AUTRES contre le LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 29724/96
O. AND P.-O. v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 26644/95
LERCHEGGER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96
LINDNER v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 26352/95
G.G. v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 28899/95
STIERINGER v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 24399/94
MENNIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 23532/94
JUNTUNEN v. FINLAND
- EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 24544/94
HENZI v. SWITZERLAND
- EKMR, 31.03.1993 - 19011/91
M.T.J. v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 27560/15
WYSOCZANSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.01.2017 - 78480/13
BODET c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 5952/03
EKHOLM v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 36288/97
FRYCKMAN AND FRYCKMAN YHTIO OY v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 37876/02
CLEMENT et le SYNDICAT MK FRANCE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.05.1988 - 10208/82
PAUWELS v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 03.11.2016 - 36214/10
RYABTSEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 37921/97
PLICHOTA contre la FRANCE
- EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 19524/92
K. v. DENMARK
- EKMR, 08.01.1993 - 15997/90
O.B. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 37901/97
RAITA AND JALI RAITA CONSULTING OY v. FINLAND