Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 39120/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,39009) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BARTENBACH v. AUSTRIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 39120/03
- EGMR, 05.10.2016 - 39120/03
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 39120/03
The Court reiterates that the principle of equality of arms - one of the elements of the broader concept of fair trial - requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, § 33; Ankerl v. Switzerland, judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1567-68, § 38). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 39120/03
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 applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 39120/03
As the Court previously held it is an inherent part of a "fair hearing" in criminal proceedings as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the defendant should be given an opportunity to comment on evidence obtained in regard to disputed facts even if the facts relate to a point of procedure rather than the alleged offence as such (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, p. 43, § 102). - EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 39120/03
Each party must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other party (Ruiz Mateos v. Spain, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 25, § 63; Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 18 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 108, § 24; Beer v. Austria, no. 30428/96, 6 February 2001, § 17; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 62-64; and Josef Fischer v. Austria, no. 33382/96, § 18-22, 17 January 2002).