Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JULIUS KLOIBER SCHLACHTHOF GMBH AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JULIUS KLOIBER SCHLACHTHOF GMBH AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Criminal charge;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal;Tribunal established by law);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

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

• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 21565/07

  It must also satisfy a series of further requirements: independence, in particular of the executive; impartiality; the duration of its members" terms of office; and the guarantees afforded by its procedure - several of which appear in the text of Article 6 § 1 itself (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 64, Series A no. 132).
• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 21565/07

  The imposition of parafiscal charges, such as the marketing contributions levied by AMA and surcharges in the event of non-payment, had not concerned the determination of civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. The Government maintained that proceedings concerning surcharges could only be regarded as criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 in certain circumstances, as the Court had found in the case of Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, ECHR 2006-XIII. According to this judgment, the test for qualifying proceedings as criminal within the meaning of Article 6 was based on three elements, namely the qualification of the provision in domestic law as criminal, the character of the offence and the severity of the penalty the person concerned risked.
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 21565/07

  As it had considered the applicant companies" complaints on the merits, point by point, without ever having to decline jurisdiction when replying to them, that court had qualified as a tribunal for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (relying on Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 32, Series A no. 268-A).

• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 75845/12

  SIMSEK, ANDIÇ ET BOGATEKIN c. TURQUIE

  En bref, les actions des requérantes ont été examinées sur le fond par un tribunal, ce qui signifie qu'elles ont eu ainsi la possibilité de soulever leurs moyens dans le cadre de débats contradictoires devant au moins une juridiction interne (voir Ionescu, décision précitée, § 40 - comparer, Julius Kloiber Schlachthof GmbH et autres c. Autriche, nos 21565/07 et 3 autres, §§ 28 à 34, 4 avril 2013), sans qu'on puisse y déceler un indice d'arbitraire ou de manque d'équité.