Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LINDNER v. GERMANY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  However, Article 6 § 1 does not require the legislature to regulate every detail in this area by a formal Act of Parliament if the legislature establishes at least the organisational framework for the judicial organisation (see the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982; Series A no. 53, p. 16, § 33; and also the report of the Commission of 12 October 1978 in the case of Zand v. Austria, D.R. 15, p. 80).
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  The Court would further recall that there are two tests for assessing whether a tribunal is impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1: the first - the subjective test - consists in seeking to determine the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case and the second - the objective test - in ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see the above-mentioned Gautrin and Others judgment, p. 1030, § 58, with reference to the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, § 33).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  The same applies to advertising (see the above-mentioned Casado Coca judgment, p. 20, § 50, with reference to the markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, p. 20, § 33; the above-mentioned Jacubowski judgment, p. 14, § 26).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  Disciplinary proceedings against medical practitioners may give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. This is so if the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner is at stake in those proceedings, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27; the Gautrin and Others v. France judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1022, § 33).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  Disciplinary proceedings against medical practitioners may give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. This is so if the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner is at stake in those proceedings, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27; the Gautrin and Others v. France judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1022, § 33).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  Article 10 does not apply solely to certain types of information or ideas or forms of expression, in particular those of a political nature; it also encompasses artistic expression, information of a commercial nature and even light music and commercials transmitted by cable as well as notices placed by a lawyer in newspapers, advertising his practice (see the Casado Coca v. Spain judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, pp. 16-17, §§ 35-36; the Jacubowski v. Germany judgment of 23 June 1994, Series 291-A, p. 13, § 25).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  Disciplinary proceedings against medical practitioners may give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. This is so if the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner is at stake in those proceedings, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27; the Gautrin and Others v. France judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1022, § 33).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  Disciplinary proceedings against medical practitioners may give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. This is so if the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner is at stake in those proceedings, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27; the Gautrin and Others v. France judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1022, § 33).