Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARA LIND EGGERTSDÓTTIR c. ISLANDE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARA LIND EGGERTSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 31930/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 26527/95

  BLUM and JACOBI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  In this regard the Government prayed in aid the decisions in the cases of Beleggings- en Beheersmaatschappij Indiana B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21491/93, of 29 November 1995, and Wolfgang Blum and Klaus Ignaz Jacobi v. Austria (dec.) no. 26527/95 of 18 November 1995.

  Therefore, the Court is unable to share the Government's view that this was merely a question of experts being employed by the same administrative authority as that involved in the case (see Bönisch, cited above, § 32; cf. Brandstetter, cited above, p. 21, §§ 44-45; Zumtobel v. Austria, Commission's report of 30 June 1992, § 86, ECHR Series A no. 268-A; Beleggings- en Beheersmaatschappij Indiana B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.) no. 21491/93, 29 November 1995; and Wolfgang Blum and Klaus Ignaz Jacobi v. Austria (dec.) no. 26527/95 of 18 November 1995).

• EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  BELEGGINGS- EN BEEHEERSMAATSCHAPPIJ INDIANA V.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  In this regard the Government prayed in aid the decisions in the cases of Beleggings- en Beheersmaatschappij Indiana B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21491/93, of 29 November 1995, and Wolfgang Blum and Klaus Ignaz Jacobi v. Austria (dec.) no. 26527/95 of 18 November 1995.

  Therefore, the Court is unable to share the Government's view that this was merely a question of experts being employed by the same administrative authority as that involved in the case (see Bönisch, cited above, § 32; cf. Brandstetter, cited above, p. 21, §§ 44-45; Zumtobel v. Austria, Commission's report of 30 June 1992, § 86, ECHR Series A no. 268-A; Beleggings- en Beheersmaatschappij Indiana B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.) no. 21491/93, 29 November 1995; and Wolfgang Blum and Klaus Ignaz Jacobi v. Austria (dec.) no. 26527/95 of 18 November 1995).

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  In its case-law the Court has recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms inherent in the concept of a fair trial (see Bönisch v. Austria, judgment of 6 May 1985 (Merits), Series A no. 92, §§ 30-35; and Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 33).

  While such apprehensions may have a certain importance, they are not decisive; what is decisive is whether the doubts raised by appearances can be held to be objectively justified (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 44).

 
• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  In its case-law the Court has recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms inherent in the concept of a fair trial (see Bönisch v. Austria, judgment of 6 May 1985 (Merits), Series A no. 92, §§ 30-35; and Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 33).

  In this connection, the Court notes that in view of the SMLB's special statutory role as provider of medical opinions to inter alia the courts, it can be assumed that the SMLB's opinions on matters referred to it carry greater weight in their assessment than those of an expert witness called by one of the parties (see Bönisch v. Austria, judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, pp. 15-16, § 33).

• EGMR, 22.10.1984 - 8790/79

  Sramek ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  Furthermore, while the doctors in question were not assigned to the hospital department where the disputed events had taken place, their hierarchical superior, the Chief Medical Executive, had taken a clear stance against the District Court's judgment by endorsing critical statements (see paragraph 12 above) by two hospital doctors that were forwarded to the Solicitor General and annexed to the State's appeal to the Supreme Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sramek v. Austria, judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A no. 84, pp. 19-20, §§ 41-42, relating to the independence of civil servant members of a tribunal in a subordinate position vis-à-vis one of the parties).
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  In addition, the applicant must have suffered anguish and distress from the violation which this finding cannot adequately compensate (see Pétur Thór Sigurðsson , cited above, § 51; and H. v. Belgium, judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B, p. 37, § 60).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 37372/97

  WALSTON (No. 1) v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  Inasmuch as it implies that variable standards should apply to the competent "tribunal" depending on practical considerations, the Court does not accept the Government's reasoning (see Walston v. Norway, no. 37372/97 (dec.), 11 December 2001).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  Therefore, the Court is unable to share the Government's view that this was merely a question of experts being employed by the same administrative authority as that involved in the case (see Bönisch, cited above, § 32; cf. Brandstetter, cited above, p. 21, §§ 44-45; Zumtobel v. Austria, Commission's report of 30 June 1992, § 86, ECHR Series A no. 268-A; Beleggings- en Beheersmaatschappij Indiana B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.) no. 21491/93, 29 November 1995; and Wolfgang Blum and Klaus Ignaz Jacobi v. Austria (dec.) no. 26527/95 of 18 November 1995).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  In the Court's view, a decision to appoint an expert, be it with or without the parties' consent, is a matter that normally falls within the national court's discretion under Article 6 § 1 in assessing the admissibility and relevance of evidence, which has been recognised by the Court in its case-law (see Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 43803/98, § 31, 8 August 2006; and Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  The question whether a tribunal is impartial for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined solely according to the principles laid down in the Court's case-law, namely according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV; and Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).