Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 4490/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,67688) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RICHTER v. AUSTRIA
(englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 4490/06
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 29477/95
EISENSTECKEN c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 4490/06
As the Austrian reservation in respect of Article 6 § 1 concerning the requirement that hearings be public has been found to be invalid (see Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 29, ECHR 2000-X), the applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing before the first and only tribunal examining his case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, 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; Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-II; and Allan Jacobsson, cited above, § 46. - EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 4490/06
The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where the proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
- EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87
ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 4490/06
In the Government's view a minor increase in the height of the building could not affect the applicant's civil rights or pecuniary interests and the case therefore had to be distinguished from the Ortenberg v. Austria judgment (25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B). - EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91
FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 4490/06
As the Austrian reservation in respect of Article 6 § 1 concerning the requirement that hearings be public has been found to be invalid (see Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 29, ECHR 2000-X), the applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing before the first and only tribunal examining his case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, 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; Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-II; and Allan Jacobsson, cited above, § 46. - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 4490/06
As the Austrian reservation in respect of Article 6 § 1 concerning the requirement that hearings be public has been found to be invalid (see Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 29, ECHR 2000-X), the applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing before the first and only tribunal examining his case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, 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; Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-II; and Allan Jacobsson, cited above, § 46.