Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEZNARIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 71615/01
• EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 62435/00

  PESCADOR VALERO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  Provided they are not based on arbitrary assumptions, the Court will take such rules into account when making its own assessment whether a tribunal was impartial and, in particular, whether the applicant's fears can be held to be objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Pescador Valero v. Spain, no. 62435/00, §§ 24-29, ECHR 2003-VII; Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 36; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, pp.
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  Provided they are not based on arbitrary assumptions, the Court will take such rules into account when making its own assessment whether a tribunal was impartial and, in particular, whether the applicant's fears can be held to be objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Pescador Valero v. Spain, no. 62435/00, §§ 24-29, ECHR 2003-VII; Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 36; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, pp.
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  In Piersack v. Belgium (judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-16, §§ 30-31) the fact that a judge had presided over a criminal trial after having been the head of the public prosecutor's office in charge of the prosecution in the case was capable of making the tribunal's impartiality open to doubt, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, § 26).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  Even if it might be argued that the specific provisions on the withdrawal are not particularly clear and precise, the Court points out that its task is not to review the relevant domestic law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the present case (see, inter alia, Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 24; and Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 45).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  Even if it might be argued that the specific provisions on the withdrawal are not particularly clear and precise, the Court points out that its task is not to review the relevant domestic law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the present case (see, inter alia, Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 24; and Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 45).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  Provided they are not based on arbitrary assumptions, the Court will take such rules into account when making its own assessment whether a tribunal was impartial and, in particular, whether the applicant's fears can be held to be objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Pescador Valero v. Spain, no. 62435/00, §§ 24-29, ECHR 2003-VII; Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 36; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, pp.
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255, p. 12, §§ 27, 28 and 30; Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09

  BELLIZZI v. MALTA

  In itself, the objective test is functional in nature: for instance, the exercise of different functions within the judicial process by the same person (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15), or hierarchical or other links with another actor in the proceedings (see cases regarding the dual role of a judge, for example, Wettstein, cited above, § 47, and Meznaric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, 15 July 2005, representing the applicant's opponents and subsequently judging in a single set of proceedings and overlapping proceedings respectively), give rise to objectively justified misgivings as to the impartiality of the tribunal, which thus fail to meet the Convention standard under the objective test (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 121, ECHR 2005-XIII).
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 77707/13

  SMAILAGIC v. CROATIA

  Such rules manifest the national legislature's concern to remove all reasonable doubts as to the impartiality of the judge or court concerned and constitute an attempt to ensure impartiality by eliminating the causes for such concerns (see Meznaric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, § 27, 15 July 2005; and Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 99, ECHR 2009).