Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,32290
EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,32290)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.09.2016 - 64735/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,32290)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. September 2016 - 64735/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,32290)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,32290) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

    GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    The Court has already held that the administrative disciplinary proceedings in the instant case did not give rise to a "criminal charge" against the applicant within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 57 above) (see, a contrario, Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10, 18647/10, 18663/10, 18668/10 and 18698/10, § 222, 4 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

    Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    The Court reiterates however that this provision must be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second "offence" in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 82, ECHR 2009).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

    ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    However, even assuming that Article 6 § 2 was applicable in the present case (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 93, no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013, for further general principles on the application of the provision), the provision safeguards the right to be "presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law".
  • EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 32181/04

    SIGMA RADIO TELEVISION LTD v. CYPRUS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    In assessing the sufficiency of judicial review available to an applicant, the Court will have regard to the powers of the judicial body in question (see, for example, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 44 Series A no. 328-C; Bryan, §§ 44-45, cited above; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, § 55, ECHR 2001-X; and Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV), and to such factors as (a) the subject matter of the decision appealed against, in particular, whether or not it concerned a specialised issue requiring professional knowledge or experience and whether it involved the exercise of administrative discretion and if, so, to what extent; (b) the manner in which that decision was arrived at, in particular, the procedural guarantees available in the proceedings before the adjudicatory body; and (c) the content of the dispute, including the desired and actual grounds of appeal (see, inter alia, Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, §§ 152-54, 21 July 2011 and references cited therein; and, more recently, Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria, no. 36181/05, § 59, 12 November 2013 and Fazia Ali, cited above, § 78).
  • EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

    GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    In assessing the sufficiency of judicial review available to an applicant, the Court will have regard to the powers of the judicial body in question (see, for example, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 44 Series A no. 328-C; Bryan, §§ 44-45, cited above; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, § 55, ECHR 2001-X; and Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV), and to such factors as (a) the subject matter of the decision appealed against, in particular, whether or not it concerned a specialised issue requiring professional knowledge or experience and whether it involved the exercise of administrative discretion and if, so, to what extent; (b) the manner in which that decision was arrived at, in particular, the procedural guarantees available in the proceedings before the adjudicatory body; and (c) the content of the dispute, including the desired and actual grounds of appeal (see, inter alia, Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, §§ 152-54, 21 July 2011 and references cited therein; and, more recently, Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria, no. 36181/05, § 59, 12 November 2013 and Fazia Ali, cited above, § 78).
  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

    DIENNET v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    The Court has consistently held that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake give rise to "contestations" (disputes) over civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, in particular, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, §§ 87-95, Series A no. 27; Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 27, Series A no. 325-A; Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-III; W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, §§ 28-30, 21 December 1999; Goriany v. Austria, no. 31356/04, § 21, 10 December 2009; and Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, § 36, 9 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    The Court has consistently held that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake give rise to "contestations" (disputes) over civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, in particular, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, §§ 87-95, Series A no. 27; Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 27, Series A no. 325-A; Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-III; W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, §§ 28-30, 21 December 1999; Goriany v. Austria, no. 31356/04, § 21, 10 December 2009; and Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, § 36, 9 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

    FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    This has been the case, for example, where upon judicial review the applicants" submissions on their merits or grounds of appeal were examined point by point, without the court having to decline jurisdiction in replying to them or in ascertaining various facts (see, inter alia, Zumtobel, § 32, cited above; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no. 312; and Bryan, § 47, Müller and Potocka, §§ 56-58, cited above; see also the Commission decisions in Kristavcnik - Reutterer v. Austria, no. 22475/93, 10 September 1993; ISKCON and 8 others v. the United Kingdom, no. 20490/92, 8 March 1994; Stefan v. the United Kingdom, no. 29419/95, 9 December 1997; Wickramsinghe v. the United Kingdom, 9 December 1997 no. 31503/96; and X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28530/95, 19 January 1998).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

    GALINA KOSTOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    In assessing the sufficiency of judicial review available to an applicant, the Court will have regard to the powers of the judicial body in question (see, for example, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 44 Series A no. 328-C; Bryan, §§ 44-45, cited above; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, § 55, ECHR 2001-X; and Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV), and to such factors as (a) the subject matter of the decision appealed against, in particular, whether or not it concerned a specialised issue requiring professional knowledge or experience and whether it involved the exercise of administrative discretion and if, so, to what extent; (b) the manner in which that decision was arrived at, in particular, the procedural guarantees available in the proceedings before the adjudicatory body; and (c) the content of the dispute, including the desired and actual grounds of appeal (see, inter alia, Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, §§ 152-54, 21 July 2011 and references cited therein; and, more recently, Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria, no. 36181/05, § 59, 12 November 2013 and Fazia Ali, cited above, § 78).
  • EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

    ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14
    As to the merits of the complaint, the Court reiterates that even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are "subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58 and Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 75, 20 October 2015).
  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

    ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 55391/13

    RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

    For example, regarding lawyers, see Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, § 48, 19 February 2013, and Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 64735/14, § 56, 13 September 2016; regarding judges, see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 93, ECHR 2013; and regarding other public officials, see Moullet v. France (dec.), no. 27521/04, 13 September 2007.
  • EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

    PELEKI c. GRÈCE

    Plusieurs catégories professionnelles ont été visées: des avocats (Brown c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 38644/97, 24 novembre 1998, Müller-Hartburg c. Autriche, no 47195/06, §§ 41-48, 19 février 2013, Helmut Blum c. Autriche, no 33060/10, § 59, 5 avril 2016, et Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 64735/14, §§ 51-57, 13 septembre 2016) ; des fonctionnaires (J.L. c. France (déc.), no 17055/90, 5 avril 1995, Costa c. Portugal (déc.), no 44135/98, 9 décembre 1999, Linde Falero c. Espagne (déc.), no 51535/99, 22 juin 2000, Moullet c. France (déc.), no 27521/04, 13 septembre 2007, Vagenas c. Grèce (déc.), no 53372/07, 23 août 2011, et Nikolova et Vandova c. Bulgarie, no 20688/04, § 59, 17 décembre 2013) ; des médecins (Ouendeno c. France (déc.), no 18441/91, 2 mars 1994) ; des militaires (Kaplan et Karaca c. Turquie (déc.), no 40536/98, Gökden et Karacol c. Turquie, (déc.), no 40535/98, Batur c. Turquie, (déc.), no 38604/97, Duran et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 38925/97, Yildirim c. Turquie (déc.), no 40800/98, et Durgun c. Turquie (déc.), no 40751/98, décisions du 4 juillet 2007) ; des liquidateurs judiciaires (Galina Kostova c. Bulgarie, no 36181/05, § 52, 12 novembre 2013) ; des juges (Oleksandr Volkov, précité, §§ 92-95, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, § 35, 9 juillet 2013, Sturua c. Géorgie, no 45729/05, § 28, 28 mars 2017, et Kamenos c. Chypre, no 147/07, §§ 50-53, 31 octobre 2017) et, comme dans les circonstances de la présente affaire, des notaires (Durand, décision précitée, §§ 55-60 ; voir également Yankov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 44768/10, 18 juin 2019).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 14139/09

    SA PATRONALE HYPOTHÉCAIRE c. BELGIQUE

    S'agissant ensuite de la méthode suivie pour parvenir à la décision litigieuse, la Cour constate que si la CBFA ne constituait pas un « tribunal'indépendant et impartial au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention respectant toutes les exigences de cette disposition, la requérante a toutefois bénéficié d'un certain nombre de garanties procédurales devant cette autorité administrative suite à sa demande d'agrément (dans le même sens, par exemple, Sigma Radio Television Ltd, précité, § 162, et Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 64735/14, § 65, 13 septembre 2016).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht