Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAPLAN v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 45983/99

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

  Relying on the Court's case-law (see A.T. v. Austria, no. 32636/96, § 36, 28 May 1997; Pauger v. Austria, judgment of 28 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 896, § 60; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58), the Government argued that the first applicant, thus, implicitly waived her right to a public hearing.

  Moreover, 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 (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, § 58; and Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002).

• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

  Referring to the cases of B. and P. v the United Kingdom (nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, §§ 38-41, ECHR 2001-III), the Government submitted that court proceedings involving custody decisions of minors were prime examples of such justified exclusion.

  Further, as regards civil proceedings, the Court does not find it inconsistent with Article 6 § 1 for a State to designate an entire class of cases as an exception to the general rule of public hearings if this is considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, §§ 87-88; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-III), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII; and B. and P., cited above).

• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, a fair hearing, the guarantee of which is one of the foundations of a democratic society (see Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 26).

  The Court recalls that the form of publicity given under domestic law to a "judgment" must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1 (see Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 33).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

  Further, as regards civil proceedings, the Court does not find it inconsistent with Article 6 § 1 for a State to designate an entire class of cases as an exception to the general rule of public hearings if this is considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, §§ 87-88; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-III), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII; and B. and P., cited above).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

  It is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 whether or not the applicant has asked for a public hearing, because no such possibility was provided for by the specific domestic law (see Diennet v. France, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p 14, § 31; and Eisenstecken, cited above, § 33).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

  Further, as regards civil proceedings, the Court does not find it inconsistent with Article 6 § 1 for a State to designate an entire class of cases as an exception to the general rule of public hearings if this is considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, §§ 87-88; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-III), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII; and B. and P., cited above).