Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OTEGI MONDRAGON AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 4184/15
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15, 4317/15, 4323/15, 5028/15, 5053/15

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  The Court furthermore notes that it has previously concluded that a finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 of the Convention when such procedural arrangements were in place under the domestic law (see, among recent authorities, Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, §§ 67-68, 14 February 2017; and Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 30749/12

  HOKKELING v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  The Court furthermore notes that it has previously concluded that a finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 of the Convention when such procedural arrangements were in place under the domestic law (see, among recent authorities, Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, §§ 67-68, 14 February 2017; and Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  It reiterates that the payment of monetary awards under Article 41 is designed to make reparation only for such consequences of a violation that cannot be remedied otherwise (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 250, ECHR 2000-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  The statements made by the presiding judge, her subsequent behaviour, as well as the following annulment of the judgment were such as to objectively justify the first applicant's fears as to her impartiality (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 79-92, ECHR 2015, Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, § 59, 5 February 2009, Buscemi v. Italy, no. 29569/95, § 68, ECHR 1999-VI; and, mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, §§ 118 and 119, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  Thus, the questions whether the applicants have in fact been so affected and whether they are actually the victims of a breach go to the merits of the case (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 33 and 38, Series A no. 28; Dogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 93, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts); Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 106-07, ECHR 2011-IV; and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  The Court observes that the complaint concerning the impartiality of the Fourth Section of the Audiencia Nacional on the ground that it had previously been declared biased in former proceedings, was properly raised "in substance" in the framework of the domestic proceedings and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 27, Series A no. 236; and Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 72, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 16.09.1999 - 29569/95

  BUSCEMI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  The statements made by the presiding judge, her subsequent behaviour, as well as the following annulment of the judgment were such as to objectively justify the first applicant's fears as to her impartiality (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 79-92, ECHR 2015, Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, § 59, 5 February 2009, Buscemi v. Italy, no. 29569/95, § 68, ECHR 1999-VI; and, mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, §§ 118 and 119, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  The personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 47, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will for personal reasons (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 25, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  Thus, the questions whether the applicants have in fact been so affected and whether they are actually the victims of a breach go to the merits of the case (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 33 and 38, Series A no. 28; Dogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 93, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts); Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 106-07, ECHR 2011-IV; and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 04.09.2019 - 56134/08

  KORZENIAK CONTRE LA POLOGNE