Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WEH AND WEH v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 38544/97
- EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97
- EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 38544/97
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 31827/96
Verstoß gegen die Grundsätze des fairen Verfahrens wegen des Zwangs der Vorlegung …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97
Further, the Government distinguished the present case from cases in which the Court has found a violation of the right to remain silent (see, in particular, the Funke v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A and, as a recent authority, J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, ECHR 2001-III), in that the applicant's choice was not limited to either remaining silent and having a fine imposed on him or incriminating himself. - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86
BORGERS v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97
In the context of criminal proceedings the principle is violated for instance if the defence does not have the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment upon submissions made by the prosecution (ibid., p. 360, § 50) or if the defence is excluded from a sitting of the court in which the prosecution is allowed to participate (see the Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 32, § 28). - EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84
FUNKE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97
Further, the Government distinguished the present case from cases in which the Court has found a violation of the right to remain silent (see, in particular, the Funke v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A and, as a recent authority, J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, ECHR 2001-III), in that the applicant's choice was not limited to either remaining silent and having a fine imposed on him or incriminating himself. - EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79
Öztürk ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97
The Court further reiterates that conferring the prosecution and punishment of minor offences on administrative authorities, which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - as in this case the District Authority - is not inconsistent with the Convention provided that the person concerned is enabled to take any decision thus made against him before a tribunal that does offer the guarantees of Article 6 (see the Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73. pp. 21-22, § 56 and the above-cited Schmautzer judgment, p. 15, § 34). - EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88
THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97
It found no violation of Article 6 on the ground that at the sittings held in the public prosecutor's absence the court was not called upon to investigate the merits of the case, let alone to assume any function which might have been fulfilled by the prosecutor had he been present (judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 24, § 53).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.03.2017 - C-685/15
Online Games u.a. - Art. 49 und 56 AEUV - Glücksspiele - Glücksspielmonopol in …
16 Vgl. EGMR, 4. Juli 2002, Weh und Weh/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2002:0704DEC003854497).21 Vgl. in Bezug auf den Unabhängigen Verwaltungssenat, Vorgänger des heutigen Landesverwaltungsgerichts, die Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte vom 4. Juli 2002, Weh und Weh/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2002:0704DEC003854497).
Zum Unabhängigen Verwaltungssenat, dem Vorgänger des heutigen Landesverwaltungsgerichts, verweise ich auf die Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte vom 4. Juli 2002, Weh und Weh/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2002:0704DEC003854497).