Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BELLIZZI v. MALTA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
Having regard to the above principles and to the conclusion that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable, the Court considers that Article 14 cannot apply in the instant case (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 76, ECHR 2002-VII; and Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, § 91, 22 August 2006). - EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03
BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
Having regard to the above principles and to the conclusion that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable, the Court considers that Article 14 cannot apply in the instant case (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 76, ECHR 2002-VII; and Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, § 91, 22 August 2006). - EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 1250/02
TUNCAY v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
Generally speaking, the imprescriptibility and inalienability of public land have not prevented the Court from concluding that "possessions" within the meaning of this provision were at stake (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII; N.A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 37451/97, ECHR 2005-X; Tuncay v. Turkey, no. 1250/02, 12 December 2006; Köktepe v. Turkey, no. 785/03, 2 July 2008; Turgut and Others v. Turkey, no. 1411/03, 8 July 2008; and Satır v. Turkey, no. 36192/03, 10 March 2009).
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 785/03
MAKARCZYK v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
Generally speaking, the imprescriptibility and inalienability of public land have not prevented the Court from concluding that "possessions" within the meaning of this provision were at stake (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII; N.A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 37451/97, ECHR 2005-X; Tuncay v. Turkey, no. 1250/02, 12 December 2006; Köktepe v. Turkey, no. 785/03, 2 July 2008; Turgut and Others v. Turkey, no. 1411/03, 8 July 2008; and Satır v. Turkey, no. 36192/03, 10 March 2009). - EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 1411/03
TURGUT ET AUTRES ET 18 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
Generally speaking, the imprescriptibility and inalienability of public land have not prevented the Court from concluding that "possessions" within the meaning of this provision were at stake (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII; N.A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 37451/97, ECHR 2005-X; Tuncay v. Turkey, no. 1250/02, 12 December 2006; Köktepe v. Turkey, no. 785/03, 2 July 2008; Turgut and Others v. Turkey, no. 1411/03, 8 July 2008; and Satır v. Turkey, no. 36192/03, 10 March 2009). - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
The Government submitted that mooring at a particular place had not been an indispensable element of the applicants" business, comparable to a licence, and it could not be considered as "one of the principal conditions for the carrying on of the applicants" business" (Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 53, Series A no. 159). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
The purpose of this rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 37372/97
WALSTON (No. 1) v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
The time-frame is relevant when assessing the significance of a judge's previous relationship to an opposing party (see Walston v. Norway (dec.), no. 37372/97, 11 December 2001). - EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01
MEZNARIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
In itself, the objective test is functional in nature: for instance, the exercise of different functions within the judicial process by the same person (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15), or hierarchical or other links with another actor in the proceedings (see cases regarding the dual role of a judge, for example, Wettstein, cited above, § 47, and Meznaric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, 15 July 2005, representing the applicant's opponents and subsequently judging in a single set of proceedings and overlapping proceedings respectively), give rise to objectively justified misgivings as to the impartiality of the tribunal, which thus fail to meet the Convention standard under the objective test (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 121, ECHR 2005-XIII). - EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
Thus, the complaint submitted to the Court must first have been made to the appropriate national courts, at least in substance, in accordance with the formal requirements of domestic law and within the prescribed time-limits (see Zarb Adami v. Malta (dec.), no. 17209/02, 24 May 2005). - EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 44946/05
HUUHTANEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
McFARLANE v. IRELAND
- EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 27043/95
JENNY v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14191/88
HOLM v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88
FEY v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79
Minelli ./. Schweiz
- EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02
Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96
WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11
BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA
The Court firstly notes that it has already established in the context of Maltese cases before it that even though Maltese domestic law provides for a remedy against a final judgment of the Constitutional Court, the length of the proceedings detracts from the effectiveness of that remedy and, in view of the specific situation of the Constitutional Court in the domestic legal order, this is not a remedy which needs to be used in order to fulfil the exhaustion requirement (see Saliba and Others v. Malta, no. 20287/10, § 78, 22 November 2011 and Bellizzi v. Malta, no. 46575/09, § 44, 21 June 2011). - EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 61548/21
DALVY c. LES 47 ÉTATS MEMBRES
Quant aux allégations de la requérante imputant un défaut d'impartialité aux membres du greffe du TACE (paragraphe 21 in fine ci-dessus), la Cour a déjà considéré que l'exigence d'impartialité au sens de l'article 6 § 1 pourrait également s'étendre aux agents auxiliaires de justice tels que greffiers ou référendaires, en fonction de leur rôle et de leurs fonctions dans le système judiciaire en question (Bellizzi c. Malte, no 46575/09, § 59, 21 juin 2011). - EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 81415/12
ÇÖÇELLI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
The Court further reiterates that the objective test is functional in nature as it mostly concerns hierarchical or other links between the judge and other participants in the proceedings (see Bellizzi v. Malta, no. 46575/09, § 54, 21 June 2011). - EGMR - 44681/21 (anhängig)
TSULUKIDZE v. GEORGIA
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the applicant's relevant allegations concerning the judicial assistant of Judge L.M., was the panel of the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant's case impartial (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2015; Bellizzi v. Malta, no. 46575/09, §§ 57-62, 21 June 2011; Nikolov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 41195/02, §§ 19-27, 20 December 2007; see also Mitrov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 45959/09, § 54, 2 June 2016)?.