Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KABWE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  The overarching principle of fairness embodied in Article 6 is, as always, the key consideration (see, mutatis mutandis, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-II; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 90, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 28394/95

  DÖRY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  There may be proceedings, both criminal or civil, in which an oral hearing may not be required: for example where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which necessitate a hearing and the courts may fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties' submissions and other written materials (see, for example, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; cf.
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38629/97

  LUNDEVALL v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 39, 12 November 2002 and Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002, and see also Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V, where the applicant should have been heard on elements of personal suffering relevant to levels of compensation).

 
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  SALOMONSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 39, 12 November 2002 and Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002, and see also Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V, where the applicant should have been heard on elements of personal suffering relevant to levels of compensation).
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 57795/00

  PURSIHEIMO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  There may be proceedings, both criminal or civil, in which an oral hearing may not be required: for example where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which necessitate a hearing and the courts may fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties' submissions and other written materials (see, for example, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; cf.
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 55853/00

  MILLER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  It does not mean that refusing to hold an oral hearing may be justified only in rare cases (see Miller v. Sweden, no. 55853/00, § 29, 8 February 2005).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  Only where a party would not receive a fair hearing without the provision of legal aid, with reference to all the facts and circumstances of the case, will Article 6 require legal assistance (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  However, since the complaints under Article 14 relate to matters which fall within the ambit of Article 6, the Court is not precluded from considering the merits of the applicants' complaints under Article 14 (see, inter alia, Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 42, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  An oral, and public, hearing constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 § 1 (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2006-XIII).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  The Court has further acknowledged that the national authorities may have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy and has found, for example, that the systematic holding of hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in social security cases and ultimately prevent compliance with the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 58 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05

  YEVDOKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  29647/08 and 33269/08, 2 February 2010, and Marcello Viola v. Italy, no. 45106/04, § 70, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts)).