Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SVARC AND KAVNIK v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 75617/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 34130/96

  MOREL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  In this respect, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see, among other authorities, Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 26, and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, § 41, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  When determining the objective justification of the applicant's fear, such factors as the judge's dual role in the proceedings, the time which elapsed between the two participations, and the extent to which the judge was involved in the proceedings may be taken into consideration (see, for example, Walston v. Norway, no. 37372/97, 3 June 2003; Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and McGonnell v. the United Kingdom, no. 28488/95, ECHR 2000-II).

 
• EGMR, 24.01.2002 - 40028/98

  DELAGE et MAGISTRELLO contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  The Government have referred to the Court's findings in the case of Delange and Magistrello v. France and claimed that the mere fact that a judge actively participated in the preliminary proceedings to which the applicant was a party and had detailed knowledge of the facts of the case was not sufficient to raise any doubts as to his impartiality when he was presiding over the case later on in the proceedings (see Delage and Magistrello v. France (dec.), no. 40028/98, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 37372/97

  WALSTON (No. 1) v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  When determining the objective justification of the applicant's fear, such factors as the judge's dual role in the proceedings, the time which elapsed between the two participations, and the extent to which the judge was involved in the proceedings may be taken into consideration (see, for example, Walston v. Norway, no. 37372/97, 3 June 2003; Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and McGonnell v. the United Kingdom, no. 28488/95, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 62435/00

  PESCADOR VALERO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  They further emphasised the distinction between the present case and that of Pescador Valero v. Spain, because Mr Ude had not been in a close relationship with the applicants' adversary (see Pescador Valero v. Spain, no. 62435/00, ECHR 2003-VII).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  Furthermore, the applicant is generally required to raise in substance and in due form in the domestic proceedings the complaints addressed to the Court, including the procedural means that might have prevented a breach of the Convention (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 59).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 75617/01

  In this respect, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see, among other authorities, Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 26, and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, § 41, ECHR 2000-VI).