Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HIT D.D. NOVA GORICA v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HIT D.D. NOVA GORICA v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 50996/08

  The Court agrees with the Government that it is not possible to speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings concerned had there been no violation of the Convention (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 50996/08

  What is at stake is the confidence which the courts must inspire in the public in a democratic society (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

  PROCOLA c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 50996/08

  While the attention of the Constitutional Court panel deciding on the admissibility of the applicant company's constitutional appeal was drawn to the constitutional perspective of the case, the examination of the case necessarily entailed, at least to a certain extent, reconsideration of the earlier decisions upholding N.N."s arguments (see, mutatis mutandis, Procola v. Luxembourg, 28 September 1995, §§ 44-45, Series A no. 326, and Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, § 53, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 50996/08

  The Court reiterates that the question of whether a tribunal is impartial for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be determined by applying a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and an objective test, that is, by ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  STURUA v. GEORGIA

  In other words, on appeal, the same four judges were called upon to reconsider their own decision in the same case in its entirety, to review whether or not they themselves had committed any error in their assessment of the facts or of legal interpretation (compare with San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 61-66, ECHR 2004-IX; Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005; and HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia, no. 50996/08, §§ 37-42, 5 June 2014; contrast with Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, §§ 43-47, 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-38, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 19557/22

  LUKIC AND KOVINAR D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA

  In HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia (no. 50996/08, § 29, 5 June 2014), the Court took into account that the alleged breach of the principle of impartiality had occurred before the highest domestic judicial authority against whose decisions no appeal lied and therefore could not have been rectified at the domestic level ex post facto.