Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1999,37723
EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,37723)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.12.1999 - 25130/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,37723)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Dezember 1999 - 25130/94 (https://dejure.org/1999,37723)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,37723) 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 ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

    Oberschlick ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94
    Thus, although the excessive length of the proceedings was a relevant consideration both with regard to sentencing and to compensation, these were nevertheless two separate issues (see the Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 28, § 73, cf. the Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 23, § 50).
  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94
    Accordingly, they can no longer claim to be "victims" for the purposes of Article 34 of a violation of either Article 6 § 1 or Article 13. Their complaint must therefore be considered as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and rejected under Article 35 § 4 (see the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 30-32, §§ 66-69; S. v. Germany, application no. 10232/83, decision on admissibility of 16 December 1983, Decisions and Reports - DR - 35, p. 213; Stefan Einarsson v. Iceland, application no. 22596/93, decision on admissibility of 5 April 1995).
  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94
    Against this background, the Court does not consider that the first applicant had any legitimate grounds for fearing that Mr Justice Tjomsland in the compensation case felt bound by his opinion on sentencing in the criminal case or had any preconceived views by reason thereof (see the above-mentioned Gillow judgment, §§ 23-24 and the Fey v. Austria judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 13, § 34; cf. the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, pp. 22-23, § 52; the Procola v. Luxembourg judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, p. 16, §§ 44-46, the Castillo Algar judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1998-VIII, no. 95, pp. 3116-3117; §§ 46-51).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

    GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94
    Thus, although the excessive length of the proceedings was a relevant consideration both with regard to sentencing and to compensation, these were nevertheless two separate issues (see the Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 28, § 73, cf. the Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 23, § 50).
  • EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

    PROCOLA c. LUXEMBOURG

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94
    Against this background, the Court does not consider that the first applicant had any legitimate grounds for fearing that Mr Justice Tjomsland in the compensation case felt bound by his opinion on sentencing in the criminal case or had any preconceived views by reason thereof (see the above-mentioned Gillow judgment, §§ 23-24 and the Fey v. Austria judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 13, § 34; cf. the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, pp. 22-23, § 52; the Procola v. Luxembourg judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, p. 16, §§ 44-46, the Castillo Algar judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1998-VIII, no. 95, pp. 3116-3117; §§ 46-51).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

    FEY v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94
    Against this background, the Court does not consider that the first applicant had any legitimate grounds for fearing that Mr Justice Tjomsland in the compensation case felt bound by his opinion on sentencing in the criminal case or had any preconceived views by reason thereof (see the above-mentioned Gillow judgment, §§ 23-24 and the Fey v. Austria judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 13, § 34; cf. the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, pp. 22-23, § 52; the Procola v. Luxembourg judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, p. 16, §§ 44-46, the Castillo Algar judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1998-VIII, no. 95, pp. 3116-3117; §§ 46-51).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 59021/00

    Massaker von Distomo

    Der bloße Umstand, dass diese Amtsperson in der Eigenschaft als Präsident des Areopags nacheinander berufen worden ist, dem Obersten Gerichtshof im Verfahren zur Hauptsache und danach beim Zwangsvollstreckungsverfahren vorzustehen, dürfte der Unparteilichkeit des Areopags keinen Abbruch tun, besonders in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass die beiden von dem Obersten Gerichtshof verhandelten Sachen zwar einen gemeinsamen materiellen Kern aufwiesen, jedoch zwei getrennte Fragen betrafen: Ein Zivilverfahren wegen Schadensersatz und ein Zwangsvollstreckungsverfahren ( Gillow ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Urteil vom 24. November 1986, Serie A Bd. 109, S. 28, Randnr. 73; Lie und Berntsen ./. Norwegen (Entsch.), Nr. 25130/94, 16. Dezember 1999, nicht veröffentlicht).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 5770/05

    SOMOGYI v. HUNGARY

    Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56936/13

    EKLUND v. FINLAND

    The mere fact that Justice P.V. sat in the composition of that court in two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant did not affect the court's impartiality as the two sets of proceedings before it related to two different sets of charges and there was no factual or legal nexus between them (see, mutatis mutandis, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], cited above, §§ 78-79; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 73, Series A no. 109; and Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

    GOLDMANN AND SZENASZKY v. HUNGARY

    Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the applicants obtained adequate redress in respect of this period of five years and six months, itself involving three court instances (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 32783/03

    KALMAR v. HUNGARY

    This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Bernsten (dec.), no. 25130/94; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 10656/03

    DANYADI v. HUNGARY

    This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Bernsten (dec.), no. 25130/94; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 67660/01

    KOVACS v. HUNGARY

    Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. This complaint must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Lie and Bernsten, (dec.), no. 25130/94).
  • EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 22920/05

    GNÁNDT v. HUNGARY

    This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 8185/05

    LEHEL v. HUNGARY

    Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Bernsten (dec.), no. 25130/94; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02

    FOLDES AND FOLDESNE HAJLIK v. HUNGARY

    Accordingly, in this connection, they can no longer claim to be victims, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999; and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 22661/02

    KOVACS v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 41664/06

    GEDA v. HUNGARY

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