Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WERNER v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 19.01.1998 - 26760/95
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

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

• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

  (...) the only disputes excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are those which are raised by public servants whose duties typify the specific activities of the public service in so far as the latter is acting as the depositary of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities" (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, §§ 65-66, ECHR 1999- VIII).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

  What is important is for that analysis to be carried out when judgment is delivered and to be based on the evidence produced and argument heard at the hearing (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, § 50; the Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, § 33; the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, § 35).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

  As to the subjective test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see, among other authorities, the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 26).

 
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

  NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

  What is important is for that analysis to be carried out when judgment is delivered and to be based on the evidence produced and argument heard at the hearing (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, § 50; the Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, § 33; the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, § 35).
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

  What is important is for that analysis to be carried out when judgment is delivered and to be based on the evidence produced and argument heard at the hearing (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, § 50; the Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, § 33; the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, § 35).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

  The Court sees no reason to disagree with the conclusion reached by the Commission which, moreover, coincides with the Court's own findings in the case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 315-B, p. 78, § 58) and in the case of Kurzac v. Poland (Kurzac v. Poland, no. 31382/96, § 20, mutatis mutandis) that the right to enjoy a good reputation and the right to have determined before a tribunal the justification of attacks upon such reputation must be considered to be civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54522/00

  KOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Elle n'a pas non plus examiné cette question dans des affaires où elle était appelée à dire si l'article 6 était applicable aux litiges nés de procédures de liquidation (voir, par exemple, Werner c. Pologne, no 26760/95, § 34, 15 novembre 2001, et Ismeta Bacic c. Croatie, no 43595/06, § 27, 19 juin 2008), ni dans celles où elle a statué sur la durée d'une procédure de ce type (Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, §§ 67-71, CEDH 2003-IX).