Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BACHMAIER v. AUSTRIA

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  It found that the present case had to be distinguished from the case of Gradinger v. Austria (judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, pp. 64-65, §§ 49-51) as the records of the Regional Court's hearings disclosed that the court, acquitting the applicant, had accepted his defence that the passenger killed in the accident had caused the accident by grabbing the steering wheel.

  The Court reiterates that the aim of this provision is to prohibit that a person is tried or punished twice for the same aspect of one criminal act (see, mutatis mutandis, Gradinger v. Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 65, § 53).

• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  As regards the complaint under Article 13 that the Administrative Court declined to deal with his complaint, the Court reiterates that the right to appeal is not as such guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention (see Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 14, § 25).
• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36855/97

  PONSETTI ET CHESNEL contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  36855/97 and 41731/98, ECHR 1999-VI; Franz Fischer, cited above; and Sailer v. Austria, no. 38237/97, 6 June 2002).

 
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  d) As regards the complaint about the IAP's failure to pronounce its decision in public, the Court observes that it has several times had occasion to rule on the Article 6 § 1 requirement that judgments must be pronounced publicly, holding that "in each case the form of publicity to be given to the "judgment" under the domestic law of the respondent State must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1" (see Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 12, § 26 in fine).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  It is further noted that the mere fact that the same judge decided on the applicant's appeal in two sets of proceedings, does not objectively justify any fears as to a lack of impartiality on his part (see mutatis mutandis, Diennet v. France, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 16, § 38; Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, § 97, Thomann v. Switzerland, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 819, § 63, Faugel v. Austria (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  b) As regards the applicant's complaint about the alleged bias of the member of the IAP who decided on his appeal both in the first and second round of the proceedings, the Court reiterates that, under the subjective test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Bulut v. Austria, judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, p. 356, § 32; and Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 26).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  In the case of Sutter v. Switzerland (judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, pp. 14-15, § 34) it held that public delivery of a decision of the Military Court of Cassation was unnecessary, as public access to that decision was ensured by other means, namely the possibility of seeking a copy of the judgment from the court registry and its subsequent publication in an official collection of case-law.
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01

  It is further noted that the mere fact that the same judge decided on the applicant's appeal in two sets of proceedings, does not objectively justify any fears as to a lack of impartiality on his part (see mutatis mutandis, Diennet v. France, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 16, § 38; Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, § 97, Thomann v. Switzerland, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 819, § 63, Faugel v. Austria (dec.), nos.