Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EFFERL v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96

  MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 13556/07

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, the public nature of a hearing 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 example, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, § 33, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 55, 12 July 2001).
• EGMR, 25.04.2002 - 64336/01

  VARELA ASSALINO contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 13556/07

  Admittedly, neither the letter nor the spirit of this provision prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to have his case heard in public (Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 58, and Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 13556/07

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, the public nature of a hearing 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 example, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, § 33, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 55, 12 July 2001).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 13556/07

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, in proceedings such as those in the present case, before a court of the first and only instance the right to a "public hearing" under Article 6 § 1 entails an entitlement to an "oral hearing" unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, §§ 21-22; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp.
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 13556/07

  In the present case the applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing as none of the exceptions laid down in the second sentence of Article 6 § 1 applied (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, § 64).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 13556/07

  Admittedly, neither the letter nor the spirit of this provision prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to have his case heard in public (Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 58, and Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 13556/07

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, in proceedings such as those in the present case, before a court of the first and only instance the right to a "public hearing" under Article 6 § 1 entails an entitlement to an "oral hearing" unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, §§ 21-22; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp.