Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZIOBRO v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 6569/04

  ARRIGO AND VELLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  The Court has considered that in democratic society it is inevitable that information is imparted when a serious charge of misconduct in office is brought (see Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  The Court has thus distinguished between a subjective approach, that is endeavouring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular case, and an objective approach, that is determining whether he or she offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 30, Series A no. 53, and Grieves v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 57067/00, § 69, 16 December 2003).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  The principle that a tribunal shall be presumed to be free of personal prejudice or partiality is long-established in the case-law of the Court (see, for example, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 58, Series A no. 43).

 
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that the reasons adduced by the national authorities in the reasonings of the above-mentioned judgments were "relevant and sufficient" for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 10 and it cannot be said that the national authorities overstepped the margin of appreciation, in respect of sanctions imposed on the applicant, in assessing the necessity of the measures applied in the circumstances of the present case (see, among others, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, ECHR 1999 I).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  In applying the subjective test, the Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 47, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  Article 6 § 2 of the Convention cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected (see Miroslaw Garlicki v. Poland, cited above, § 132; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 38, Series A no. 308; Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 139, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will or has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal reasons (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 25, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  Moreover, while Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national court (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I, with further references; Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 29686/10

  Moreover, while Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national court (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I, with further references; Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V).