Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHÄDLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 57 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 - Public hearing) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHÄDLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Schädler-Eberle v. Liechtenstein

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SCHADLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  SPEIL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  Therefore, having regard to the principles developed in the Strasbourg Court's case-law concerning a public oral hearing (the court referred, in particular, to Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been violated by the Administrative Court's refusal to hold a public oral hearing.

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  Therefore, having regard to the principles developed in the Strasbourg Court's case-law concerning a public oral hearing (the court referred, in particular, to Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been violated by the Administrative Court's refusal to hold a public oral hearing.

  It has repeatedly reiterated in that context that the entitlement to a "public hearing" necessarily implied the right to an "oral hearing" (see, inter alia, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; compare also Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263).

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  As to the requirement that the reservation must relate to specific laws in force at the moment of ratification, the Court considered that that condition was not complied with where a new legislative provision was not essentially identical to the provision in force at the time of ratification, but extended the measures covered by the reservation, such as the domestic courts" power to refuse to hold a public hearing (see Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 41, Series A no. 312; compare also Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, 23 April 1997, § 48, Reports 1997-II; Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 25, ECHR 2000-X; and Dacosta Silva, cited above, § 37).

  It further found that in proceedings before a court of first and only instance the right to a "public hearing" under Article 6 § 1 entailed an entitlement to an "oral hearing" unless there were exceptional circumstances that justified dispensing with such a hearing (see, inter alia, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 283-A; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312; Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 19 February 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-I; Miller v. Sweden, no. 55853/00, § 29, 8 February 2005; Schelling v. Austria, no. 55193/00, § 30, 10 November 2005; Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIII; Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, § 46, 14 October 2010; and Andersson v. Sweden, no. 17202/04, § 47, 7 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  Moreover, the requirement of "equality of arms" implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case - including his evidence - under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, for instance, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274; and Helle, cited above, §§ 53-54).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

  MARTINIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  It further found that in proceedings before a court of first and only instance the right to a "public hearing" under Article 6 § 1 entailed an entitlement to an "oral hearing" unless there were exceptional circumstances that justified dispensing with such a hearing (see, inter alia, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 283-A; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312; Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 19 February 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-I; Miller v. Sweden, no. 55853/00, § 29, 8 February 2005; Schelling v. Austria, no. 55193/00, § 30, 10 November 2005; Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIII; Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, § 46, 14 October 2010; and Andersson v. Sweden, no. 17202/04, § 47, 7 December 2010).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  The term "reservation of a general character" denotes in particular a reservation which does not refer to a specific provision of the Convention or is couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine their exact meaning and scope (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 55, Series A no. 132; Shestjorkin, cited above; Koslova and Smirnova, cited above; and Steck-Risch v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 63151/00, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  In order for a reservation to be applicable to the case at issue, the measures or proceedings complained of must have been governed by the law(s) covered by the reservation (compare, for instance, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 39, Series A no. 328-C; Koslova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, 23 October 2001; and Dacosta Silva v. Spain, no. 69966/01, §§ 34, 37, ECHR 2006-XIII).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  Therefore, having regard to the principles developed in the Strasbourg Court's case-law concerning a public oral hearing (the court referred, in particular, to Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been violated by the Administrative Court's refusal to hold a public oral hearing.
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 29477/95

  EISENSTECKEN c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 55853/00

  MILLER v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 63151/00

  STECK-RISCH AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 69966/01

  DACOSTA SILVA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00

  KOZLOVA ET SMIRNOVA contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 55193/00

  SCHELLING v. AUSTRIA

• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  BENAVENT DÍAZ c. ESPAGNE

  The Court reiterates that in order to be valid, a reservation must satisfy the following conditions: (1) it must be made at the time the Convention or the Protocols thereto are signed or ratified; (2) it must concern a particular provision of the Convention; (3) it must relate to specific laws in force at the time of ratification; (4) it must not be a reservation of a general character; and (5) it must contain a brief statement of the law concerned (see Põder and Others v. Estonia (dec.), no. 67723/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 45, 2 November 2010; and Schädler-Eberle v. Liechtenstein, no. 56422/09, § 60, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 75255/10

  SIMIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  A waiver can be made explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, for example, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002, and Schädler-Eberle v. Liechtenstein, no. 56422/09, § 100, 18 July 2013).