Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PRETTO AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
- juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 11.07.1979 - 7984/77
- EGMR, 29.06.1982 - 7984/77
- EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 1986, 2177
Wird zitiert von ... (127) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
The applicability of Article 6 (art. 6) to the present facts was not disputed and, moreover, is to be inferred from the established case-law of the Court (see notably the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, pp. 13-15, §§ 24-26, and the Pakelli judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 14, § 29). - EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78
Pakelli ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
The applicability of Article 6 (art. 6) to the present facts was not disputed and, moreover, is to be inferred from the established case-law of the Court (see notably the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, pp. 13-15, §§ 24-26, and the Pakelli judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 14, § 29). - EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78
Adolf ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
The prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial impels the Court, for the purposes of the review which it has to undertake in this area, to examine the realities of the procedure in question (see notably, mutatis mutandis, the Adolf judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, p. 15, § 30).
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1), namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36, and also the Lawless judgment of 14 November 1960, Series A no. 1, p. 13). - EGMR, 14.11.1960 - 332/57
LAWLESS v. IRELAND (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1), namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36, and also the Lawless judgment of 14 November 1960, Series A no. 1, p. 13). - EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
Although no blame can be attached to him, the applicant was nevertheless responsible to a certain degree for the prolongation of the proceedings (see the Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 36, § 82). - EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76
FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after 31 July 1973, account must be taken of the then state of proceedings (see the Foti and others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, § 53).
- EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97
RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA
By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society (see, for instance, the Pretto and Others v. Italy judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 11, § 21; the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33; and the Werner v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, p. 2510, § 45). - EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81
Deumeland ./. Deutschland
Er hat somit dazu beigetragen, das Verfahren zu verlängern (s. sinngemäß das Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1983 Pretto u.a., Série A Nr. 71, S. 15, Ziff. 34, EGMR-E 2, 319). - EuGH, 26.09.2000 - C-134/99
IGI
Artikel 57 Absatz 1 des Gesetzes Nr. 10-B/96 vom 23. März 1996 ( Diário da República I, Serie A Nr. 71 vom 23. März 1996) sieht in bestimmten Fällen eine Ermäßigung um die Hälfte bei gesetzlichen Abgaben vor, die aufgrund von 1996 durchgeführten Erhöhungen des Gesellschaftskapitals geschuldet werden.
- EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97
B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
It is, moreover, clear from the case-law of the Court that, despite its unqualified terms, the requirement that the judgment shall be pronounced publicly has been interpreted with some flexibility, the Court emphasising that "in each case the form of publicity to be given to the "judgment" under the domestic law of the respondent State must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1" (See Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 12, § 26; and see, most recently, Szücs v. Austria and Werner v. Austria, judgments of 24 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII). - EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 12643/02
MOSER v. AUSTRIA
Thus, it has held that despite the wording which would seem to suggest that reading out in open court is required, other means of rendering a judgment public may be compatible with Article 6 § 1. As a general rule, the form of publicity to be given to the judgment under domestic law must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1. In making this assessment, account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings (see, B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, previously cited, § 45; Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 12, §§ 25-27; and Axen v. Germany, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 72, pp. 13-14, §§ 30-32). - EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09
SCHÄDLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN
By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-...). - OVG Sachsen-Anhalt, 31.03.2017 - 4 L 93/16
Aushangerfordernis für die Öffentlichkeit einer Verhandlung vor dem …
Die Zustellung eines Urteils nach Maßgabe des § 116 Abs. 2 VwGO genügt den Anforderungen des Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 2 EMRK (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1983 - 3/1982/49/78 -, NJW 1986, S. 2177 ; BVerwG, Urteil vom 11. Dezember 2003 - 7 C 19/02 -, BVerwGE 119, 329 ;… Beschluss vom 30. Juni 2014 - 9 B 13/14 -, juris, Rn. 3), so dass offenbleiben kann, ob die Klägerin sich auf einen etwaigen Mangel berufen könnte, obwohl sie der Zustellung einer Entscheidung weder in der mündlichen Verhandlung noch im Zeitraum bis zur Zustellung widersprochen hat (vgl. hierzu OVG Lüneburg…, Beschluss vom 3. April 2013 - 13 LA 34.13 - juris, Rn. 7 m.w.N.). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96
NUUTINEN v. FINLAND
Un retard au cours d'une phase donnée peut se tolérer à condition que la durée totale de la procédure ne soit pas excessive (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Pretto et autres c. Italie du 8 décembre 1983, série A no 71, p. 16, § 37). - BVerwG, 30.06.2014 - 9 B 13.14
Erforderlichkeit der Erstattung von Kosten zwischen der Gemeinde und einem …
Vielmehr genügt die Zustellung des Urteils nach Maßgabe des § 116 Abs. 2 VwGO den Anforderungen des Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK (vgl. Urteil vom 11. Dezember 2003 - BVerwG 7 C 19.02 - BVerwGE 119, 329 unter Bezugnahme auf EGMR, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1983 - Nr. 3/1982/49/78 - NJW 1986, 2177, 2178). - EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98
MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …
Les requérants soulignent que la jurisprudence des organes de la Convention citée par le Gouvernement n'est pas d'application en l'espèce et se réfèrent aux arrêts Axen c. Allemagne (série A, n° 72) et Pretto et autres c. Italie (série A n° 71) du 8 décembre 1983. - EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96
ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 20688/04
NIKOLOVA ET VANDOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05
FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02
ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
JURICIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04
ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93
WERNER c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 28782/04
H.L. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18
ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03
ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 34216/07
PIETKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 12739/05
GORANOVA-KARAENEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05
WELKE AND BIALEK v. POLAND
- EKMR, 05.09.1990 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 14824/02
SYCHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 28923/95
LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 17590/02
PAPAIANOPOL c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 45619/99
ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. AND A.G.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11
VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 77413/01
BACHMAIER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 16393/14
SIOUTIS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08
SIWIEC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 32075/09
LORENZETTI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 1425/06
C.C. c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07
FELBAB v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 62915/00
BACCHINI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 53329/99
TOEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 24954/94
TIERCE ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 20602/92
SZÜCS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 25801/17
MIERLA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10
SOCIEDADE DE CONSTRUCOES MARTINS AND VIEIRA, LDA v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 47595/08
WIREDU v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 24273/04
NEVSKAYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 19750/03
AGVPS-BACAU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 14040/03
KRESTOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02
BAKOWSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37147/02
CHIRITA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03
BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 64056/00
VOLKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 61557/00
ANDRIA OY AND KARI KARANKO v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 45972/99
SIEMIANOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 42407/98
C.R. contre la FRANCE
- EKMR, 09.05.1989 - 11826/85
HELMERS v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 7198/07
BAKKER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 12668/08
LAMBIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
CHAUSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 8337/12
GHERDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 648/10
Y c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06
STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 3276/10
SHMUSHKOVYCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05
TOMCZYKOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33530/06
POHOSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 19236/07
BALCER v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 11208/03
KOLOMOYETS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 34175/05
D.J. ET A.-K.R. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 38884/06
GAVRIELIDES AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 19462/04
SAHIN KARAKOÇ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02
RYDZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 66079/01
BOCZON v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 35915/02
POSEDEL-JELINOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 8768/03
ZOUHAR c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 64056/00
VOLKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 68234/01
BASKAYA contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 38366/97
MIRAGALL ESCOLANO, ANDREU ROCAMORA, BONET VILAR, GOMEZ LOPEZ ET SORIANO RAMS …
- EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 22049/93
REVESZ v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 76985/12
FUMAL c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 57008/18
TAUTERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 1750/11
SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 9904/09
YUDIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 79925/12
ALVES v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 3705/10
FERREIRA ALVES AND ALVES v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 43611/02
BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 20702/04
RAKS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 41119/07
RUDYSH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 1018/04
AZIM DENIZCILIK TICARET VE SANAYI LIMITED SIRKETI v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 20411/05
MELANICHI v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 19078/06
BASAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 68761/01
BOBEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 77153/01
BUKRAN v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64032/00
CHLEBOVICOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 32299/02
W. S. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 74828/01
KONIBOLOTSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 59344/00
SULTANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 6027/03
KAPLAN c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 63972/00
BIRYUKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 58292/00
STUKALOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 45989/99
MARK contre l'ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 33412/96
FAMILJEN DENEV PENSIONSSTIFTELSE and DENEV v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 43301/98
JOAQUIM AIRES contre le PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 23.05.2000 - 39493/98
MITTERMAIER v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 32051/96
JÄÄSKELÄINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 28338/95
BLOM v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 08.06.1999 - 31993/96
PREDIL ANSTALT S.A. contre l'ITALIE
- EKMR, 22.10.1998 - 35580/97
ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 24240/94
BOCSI v. HUNGARY
- EKMR, 20.05.1998 - 36216/97
TOSUNBAS v. TURKEY
- EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 27382/95
KRUPINSKI v. POLAND
- EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 29760/96
LIEBESKIND v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 21555/93
SEITZBERG v. DENMARK
- EKMR, 17.05.1994 - 23272/94
FARKAS v. HUNGARY
- EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 21328/93
JOHANSSON v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 17.04.1991 - 13964/88
K. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 24.10.1989 - 10073/82
H. v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 60524/12
TSITSERNAK-8 LTD v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 7220/19
POVAROV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 4411/04
BACANU ET SC
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 5952/03
EKHOLM v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 53284/99
ROMANIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 57019/00
ÇAPLIK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02
FEHR v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 35574/97
LE PETIT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 23493/12
BAZANOVA AND MUKHACHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 28157/08
STANISZEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 19055/05
DEAK v. ROMANIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 13.01.1997 - 23209/94
TÍMÁR v. HUNGARY
- EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93
ROMANOV v. HUNGARY