Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 35354/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,40124) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ABRAHAMIAN v. AUSTRIA
(englisch)
- Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 35354/04
(Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, § 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Schelling v. Austria, no. 55193/00, § 30, 10 November 2005). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 35354/04
The Court further reiterates that the applicant was entitled in principle to have a public hearing (see, for example, the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33 and Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 55, 12 July 2001) and notes that only the Administrative Court could qualify as "tribunal" (Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp. 20-21, § 44, and Pauger v. Austria judgment of 28 May 1997, Reports 1997-III). - EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
DIENNET v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 35354/04
The Court further reiterates that the applicant was entitled in principle to have a public hearing (see, for example, the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33 and Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 55, 12 July 2001) and notes that only the Administrative Court could qualify as "tribunal" (Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp. 20-21, § 44, and Pauger v. Austria judgment of 28 May 1997, Reports 1997-III). - EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 29477/95
EISENSTECKEN c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 35354/04
The Court recalls that Austria's reservation under Article 6 was found to be invalid (Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, §§ 24-30, ECHR 2000-X) and that the Court is therefore called upon to examine whether the requirements of this provision were complied with.