Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVIDSONS AND SAVINS v. LATVIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07, 25235/07
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 17574/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 43715/98

  GARRIDO GUERRERO contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  This gave the applicant legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality on the part of the whole bench of the appellate court (contrast with, for example, Garrido Guerrero v. Spain ((dec.) no. 43715/98, ECHR 2000-III), where only one judge of a five-judge bench was affected by the partiality plea).
• EGMR, 12.02.1985 - 9024/80

  COLOZZA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  According to the Court's case-law, a waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention must be established in an unequivocal manner (see Colozza v. Italy, 9024/80, 12 February 1985, § 28, Series A no. 89).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  Furthermore, in the case of procedural rights, in order for a waiver to be effective for Convention purposes, it requires minimum guarantees commensurate to its importance (see Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, § 37, Series A no. 227).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  The language used could be perceived as going beyond the examination of the existence of a suspicion against the applicant (compare with Hauschildt, cited above; see also Mironenko and Martenko v. Ukraine, no. 4785/02, § 71, 10 December 2009) and running counter to the requirement of the judicial authorities to abstain from taking a stance on the outcome of the case and to express any suggestions in that regard (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 119, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  In this respect, even appearances may be of some importance, but what is decisive is whether the fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §§ 75 - 77, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02

  MIRONENKO AND MARTENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  The language used could be perceived as going beyond the examination of the existence of a suspicion against the applicant (compare with Hauschildt, cited above; see also Mironenko and Martenko v. Ukraine, no. 4785/02, § 71, 10 December 2009) and running counter to the requirement of the judicial authorities to abstain from taking a stance on the outcome of the case and to express any suggestions in that regard (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 119, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  An exception could be granted in certain instances where the proceedings, although characterised as "extraordinary" or "exceptional" in domestic law, were deemed to be similar in nature and scope to ordinary appeal proceedings (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 47-49, ECHR 2015 and the cases cited there).