Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEHR v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality and under Art. 6-2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  Further, the mere fact that the same judge had already decided on the applicant's appeals in other proceedings, does not objectively justify any fears as to a lack of impartiality on part of the latter (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, and Faugel v. Austria (dec.), no. 58647/00 and 58649/00, 24 October 2002).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  Further, the mere fact that the same judge had already decided on the applicant's appeals in other proceedings, does not objectively justify any fears as to a lack of impartiality on part of the latter (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, and Faugel v. Austria (dec.), no. 58647/00 and 58649/00, 24 October 2002).

 
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  In the Government's view, this delay was justified for ensuring certainty of the law (see Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 14, § 32).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  Furthermore, the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  Furthermore, the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  As regards the complaint about the bias of the member of the IAP 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, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA

  It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, among other authorities, Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 19065/05

  KHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, e.g., Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 34334/04

  HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, e.g., Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).