Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHIM AND PRZYWIECZERSKI v. POLAND

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07, 38433/07
• EGMR, 10.07.2019 - 36661/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  It referred to the case of Coëme and Others v. Belgium (nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, ECHR 2000-VII).

  In countries where the law is codified, organisation of the judicial system cannot be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 98, ECHR 2000-VII; and Gurov v. Moldova, no. 36455/02, § 34, 11 July 2006).

• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  The Constitutional Court found that, contrary to the case of Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France ([GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, ECHR 1999-VII), the legislature's interference in the present case had not consisted of influencing the determination of the case on the merits (conviction or acquittal, imposition of a penalty, length of a penalty), but of making possible a judicial determination of the case on the merits.

  It finds that the 2005 Amendment cannot be regarded as the legislative interference in the second applicant's case since - in accordance with the Constitutional Court's findings - that law did not influence the judicial determination of the case in the substantive sense, but merely extended the temporal limits of criminal liability (compare and contrast Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B, and Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII; civil cases in which the Court held that the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 precluded any interference by the legislature - other than on compelling grounds of the general interest - with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of the dispute).

• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  This expression reflects the principle of the rule of law, which is inherent in the system of protection established by the Convention and its Protocols (see, for example, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-III).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  The Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 182, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  The Court has recently summarised the general principles relating to Article 46 of the Convention in its judgment in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 47-51, ECHR 2017 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  Furthermore, there is no indication that Judge A.K. arranged to have the applicants" case assigned to him for personal reasons (De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 25, Series A no. 86; and, a contrario, DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, §§ 69-71, 5 October 2010).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  39343/98 and 3 others, §§ 196-201, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  It finds that the 2005 Amendment cannot be regarded as the legislative interference in the second applicant's case since - in accordance with the Constitutional Court's findings - that law did not influence the judicial determination of the case in the substantive sense, but merely extended the temporal limits of criminal liability (compare and contrast Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B, and Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII; civil cases in which the Court held that the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 precluded any interference by the legislature - other than on compelling grounds of the general interest - with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of the dispute).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

  PROCOLA c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  This distinguishes the applicants" case from cases where the consecutive exercise of legislative or advisory and subsequently of judicial functions cast doubts on the impartiality of a given body or a member of that body (see Procola v. Luxembourg, 28 September 1995, § 45, Series A no. 326; McGonnell v. the United Kingdom, no. 28488/95, §§ 55-58, ECHR 2000-II; and Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07

  Secondly, it may also be rejected in cases where an applicant had used particularly vexatious, contemptuous, threatening or provocative expressions in his communication with the Court (see, for example, Rehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96

  BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN
• EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 28488/95

  McGONNELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 36455/02

  GUROV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.09.1999 - 29569/95

  BUSCEMI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 40562/12

  EZGETA v. CROATIA