Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SALOMONSSON v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 38978/97
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  A waiver can be done explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  A waiver can be done explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  Furthermore, a hearing may not be necessary due to exceptional circumstances of the case, for example when it raises no questions of fact or law which cannot be adequately resolved on the basis of the case-file and the parties" written observations (see, mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, pp.

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  10-11, §§ 21-22; and Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp.
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  However, the absence of a hearing before a second or third instance may be justified by the special features of the proceedings at issue, provided a hearing has been held at first instance (see, for instance, Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 16, § 36).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  The Court notes that the Convention does not empower it to order a State to alter its legislation; the Court's judgment leaves to the State the choice of the means to be used in its domestic legal system to give effect to its obligation under Article 46 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 33, § 78).

• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  There may be proceedings in which an oral hearing may not be required: for example where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which necessitate a hearing and the courts may fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties" submissions and other written materials (see, for example, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002, and Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; compare Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 39, 12 November 2002, and Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; and see also Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V, where the applicant should have been heard on elements of personal suffering relevant to levels of compensation).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 29002/06

  SCHLUMPF c. SUISSE

  En outre, une audience publique peut ne pas être nécessaire compte tenu des circonstances exceptionnelles de l'affaire, notamment lorsque celle-ci ne soulève pas de questions de fait ou de droit qui ne peuvent être résolues sur la seule base du dossier disponible et les observations des parties (Döry c. Suède, no 28394/95, § 37, 12 novembre 2002, Lundevall c. Suède, no 38629/97, § 34, 12 novembre 2002, Salomonsson c. Suède, no 38978/97, § 34, 12 novembre 2002 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Fredin c. Suède (no 2), arrêt du 23 février 1994, série A no 283-A, pp.
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 21682/11

  SAGVOLDEN v. NORWAY

  The Court's judgment in Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, 12 November 2002 served as a reminder of even the tiniest factual dispute would occasion the need for an oral hearing even within an administrative procedure concerning social security benefits.

  There may be proceedings in which an oral hearing may not be required: for example where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which necessitate a hearing and the courts may fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties" submissions and other written materials (see, for example, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002, and Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; compare Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 39, 12 November 2002, and Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; and see also Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V, where the applicant should have been heard on elements of personal suffering relevant to levels of compensation).

 
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 55853/00

  MILLER v. SWEDEN

  168-169, § 46; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 34, 12 November 2002; Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 34, 12 November 2002; and Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, 12 November 2002, § 37; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, ECHR 2002-V, §§ 47-52).
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 42756/02

  LUGINBUHL c. SUISSE

  En outre, une audience publique peut ne pas être nécessaire compte tenu des circonstances exceptionnelles de l'affaire, notamment lorsque celle-ci ne soulève pas de questions de fait ou de droit qui ne peuvent être résolues sur la seule base du dossier disponible et les observations des parties (voir, Döry c. Suède, no 28394/95, § 37, 12 novembre 2002, Lundevall c. Suède, no 38629/97, § 34, 12 novembre 2002, Salomonsson c. Suède, no 38978/97, § 34, 12 novembre 2002, voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Fredin c. Suède (no 2), arrêt du 23 février 1994, série A no 283-A, pp.
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  TSVETELIN PETKOV v. BULGARIA

  This is especially so where the judicial authorities are expected to determine factual issues and where the applicant's claim is, by its nature, largely based on his personal experience (see Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 32075/09

  LORENZETTI c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle, en outre, qu'une audience publique peut ne pas être nécessaire compte tenu des circonstances exceptionnelles de l'affaire, notamment lorsque celle-ci ne soulève pas de questions de fait ou de droit qui ne peuvent être résolues sur la seule base du dossier disponible et les observations des parties (Schlumpf c. Suisse, no 29002/06, § 64, 8 janvier 2009 ; Döry c. Suède, no 28394/95, § 37, 12 novembre 2002, Lundevall c. Suède, no 38629/97, § 34, 12 novembre 2002, Salomonsson c. Suède, no 38978/97, § 34, 12 novembre 2002 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Fredin c. Suède (no 2), arrêt du 23 février 1994, série A no 283-A, pp.
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 30097/03

  MUMLADZE v. GEORGIA

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify certain factual issues, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  GOGOLADZE v. GEORGIA

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify some purely technical issues and prove that she had had standing to challenge the authority of the respondent company's representative, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 2745/03

  RIZHAMADZE v. GEORGIA

  Legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented just as effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  KABWE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 25717/03

  OGANOVA v. GEORGIA