Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCERRI v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SCERRI AND OTHERS v. MALTA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52, and Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 61, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  Whether the judges were called on to review their own decisions, and thus whether they had erred in their earlier decisions, is also a relevant factor (see, for example, Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 81, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 61, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 61, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  WARSICKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  Alternatively, it is possible to consider that in the present case the same judges performed different functions in the same proceedings (compare Peru?. v. Slovenia, no. 35016/05, § 38, 27 September 2012 and Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, § 40, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  In itself, the objective test is functional in nature: for instance, the exercise of different functions within the judicial process by the same person (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15), or hierarchical or other links with another actor in the proceedings (see cases regarding the dual role of a judge, for example, Wettstein, cited above, § 47, and Me?¾naric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, 15 July 2005), give rise to objectively justified misgivings as to the impartiality of the tribunal, which thus fails to meet the Convention standard under the objective test (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 121, ECHR 2005-XIII).
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  B. TAGLIAFERRO & SONS LIMITED AND COLEIRO BROTHERS LIMITED v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  Legitimate objectives in the "public interest", such as those pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may warrant reimbursement of less than the full market value (see Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited v. Malta, nos. 75225/13 and 77311/13, § 68, September 2018).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  Admissibility 32. Noting that competence ratione temporis is a matter going to the Court's jurisdiction and which it is not prevented from examining of its own motion (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III) the Court find its relevant to make the following observations.

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 37474/21

  CHEMEL AND TABONE v. MALTA

  The Court considers that an award of EUR 20, 000 in non-pecuniary damage was adequate in the circumstances of the case (compare, Curmi v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 2243/10, § 20, 9 July 2013, and Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 89, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 22008/20

  MARIA AZZOPARDI v. MALTA

  The Court notes first and foremost that in the present case the applicant did not complain about the delay in paying her compensation or that the compensation paid had not taken account of the passage of time (see Abdilla, cited above, and, a contrario, for example, Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 49, 7 July 2020).