Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAUTRIN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAUTRIN AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 27.11.1995 - 21257/93
• EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93, 21258/93, 21259/93, 21260/93, 38/1997/822/1025

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93

  The Court reiterates that it takes cognisance of preliminary objections in so far as the State in question has already raised them, at least in substance and with sufficient clarity, before the Commission and that when a State relies on the exhaustion rule, it must indicate with sufficient clarity the effective remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse (see, among many other authorities, the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 77, §§ 32 and 35).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93

  It is clear from the Court's settled case-law that disciplinary proceedings in which what is at stake - as in the instant case, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose - is the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; and the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93

  It is clear from the Court's settled case-law that disciplinary proceedings in which what is at stake - as in the instant case, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose - is the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; and the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93

  It is clear from the Court's settled case-law that disciplinary proceedings in which what is at stake - as in the instant case, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose - is the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; and the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27).
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93

  There are two tests for assessing whether a tribunal is impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1: the first consists in seeking to determine the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case and the second in ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, § 33).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93

  It is clear from the Court's settled case-law that disciplinary proceedings in which what is at stake - as in the instant case, regard being had to the penalties the professional disciplinary bodies could impose - is the right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, §§ 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, §§ 41-51; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, §§ 25-29; and the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 13, § 27).

• EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 31503/96

  WICKRAMSINGHE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is true that problems of impartiality may arise if the members of the determining body have personally been involved in prosecuting the disciplinary proceedings at an earlier stage (see Gautrin and others v. France, Nos. 21257/93 to 21260/93, Comm. Report 26.11.96, pending before the European Court of Human Rights, where the Commission found a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6), and Eur.
• EKMR, 04.07.1997 - 3605/96

  MONGIARDO v. ITALY

  2 (Art. 6-2) is not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings at issue as they do not involve any determination of a "criminal charge" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1980, Series A no. 43, p. 19, paras. 41-43; No. 21257/93, Dec. 27.11.95, unpublished).
• EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 29419/95

  STEFAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is true that problems of impartiality may arise if the members of the determining body have personally been involved in prosecuting the disciplinary proceedings at an earlier stage (see Gautrin and others v. France, Nos. 21257/93 to 21260/93, Comm. Report 26.11.96, pending before the European Court of Human Rights, where the Commission found a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6), and Eur.