Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SZYPUSZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 37401/97

  MIAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 8400/07

  The Court has previously acknowledged that the rule governing the secrecy of jury deliberations is a crucial and legitimate feature of English trial law which serves to reinforce the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of fact and to guarantee open and frank deliberations among jurors on the evidence which they have heard (see Gregory, cited above, § 44; and Miah v. the United Kingdom, no. 37401/97, Commission decision of 1 July 1998, unreported).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 8400/07

  To that end it has constantly stressed that a tribunal, including a jury, must be impartial from a subjective as well as an objective point of view (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 46, Series A no. 154; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 118, ECHR 2005-XIII; Pullar v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 30, Reports 1996-III; and Gregory, cited above, § 43).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 8400/07

  The Court recalls that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 30, Series A no. 53; and Kyprianou, cited above, § 119).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 8400/07

  Under the objective test it must be ascertained whether there are sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to a juror's impartiality (see mutatis mutandis Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV; and Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 8400/07

  It follows therefore that the Court must examine whether in the circumstances there were sufficient guarantees to exclude any objectively justified or legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of the jury bearing in mind that the misgivings of the accused, although important, cannot be decisive for its determination (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 194, ECHR 2003-VI; Gregory, cited above, § 45; and Sander, cited above, § 27).

• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 12074/12

  TIKHONOV ET KHASIS c. RUSSIE

  Par ailleurs, même si, en l'absence de toute preuve du contraire, il est raisonnable de penser que le jury suivra les instructions du juge (Szypusz c. Royaume-Uni, no 8400/07, § 85, 21 septembre 2010, et Beggs c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 15499/10, § 128, 16 octobre 2012), la Cour estime que, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, un certain nombre d'éléments étaient propres à renverser cette présomption.
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 15499/10

  BEGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has regularly emphasised, in cases concerning the fairness of criminal trials, the importance of directions given to the jury regarding their approach to various matters arising in the case (see, as recent examples, Adetoro v. the United Kingdom, no. 46834/06, § 49, 20 April 2010; Szypusz v. the United Kingdom, no. 8400/07, § 84, 21 September 2010; and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 150-151, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 52999/08

  HANIF AND KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Further, the personal impartiality of a judge or a jury member must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 30, Series A no. 53; Kyprianou, cited above, § 119; Sander v. the United Kingdom, no. 34129/96, § 25, ECHR 2000-V; and Szypusz v. the United Kingdom, no. 8400/07, § 80, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 62793/10

  DUNN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In applying the subjective test - that is, endeavouring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular case - the Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 30, Series A no. 53; Kyprianou, cited above, § 119; Sander v. the United Kingdom, no. 34129/96, § 25, ECHR 2000-V; Szypusz v. the United Kingdom, no. 8400/07, § 80, 21 September 2010; and Toziczka v. Poland, no. 29995/08, 24 July 2012).