Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1994,11922
EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88 (https://dejure.org/1994,11922)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.03.1994 - 14220/88 (https://dejure.org/1994,11922)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. März 1994 - 14220/88 (https://dejure.org/1994,11922)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1994,11922) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (46)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

    WEBER c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88
    In order to determine whether Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable under its "criminal" head, the Court will have regard to the three alternative criteria laid down in its case-law (see, for example, the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, para. 82; the Lutz v. Germany judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, p. 23, para. 55; the Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, pp. 17-18, paras. 31-34; the Demicoli v. Malta judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, pp. 15-17, paras. 30-35).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

    DEMICOLI v. MALTA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88
    In order to determine whether Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable under its "criminal" head, the Court will have regard to the three alternative criteria laid down in its case-law (see, for example, the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, para. 82; the Lutz v. Germany judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, p. 23, para. 55; the Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, pp. 17-18, paras. 31-34; the Demicoli v. Malta judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, pp. 15-17, paras. 30-35).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

    HELMERS c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88
    However, the Court, in accordance with its established case-law (see, for instance, the Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p.13, para. 25), will deal only with the complaint declared admissible by the Commission, namely that the absence of an oral hearing in any of the proceedings relating to the fines violated Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

    MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88
    The proceedings relating to the fines imposed on the applicant were based on the 1946 Act on the Handling of Court Matters (see paragraph 21 above); although the applicability of this Act is contested by the applicant, the Court cannot in this regard substitute its own views for those of the Swedish courts (see, mutatis mutandis, the Van der Leer v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 170-A, p. 12, para. 22; and the Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, pp. 27-28, para. 82).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 35968/97

    Rechtssache V. K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Der Gerichtshof wiederholt, dass die Auslegung des innerstaatlichen Rechts in erster Linie den staatlichen Behörden und insbesondere den Gerichten obliegt und dass er deren Auslegungen außer bei Vorliegen von Willkür nicht durch seine eigenen ersetzt (siehe entsprechend Ravnsborg ./. Schweden , Urteil vom 23. März 1994, Serie A, Band 283-B, S. 29, Nr. 33, Bulut ./. Österreich , Urteil vom 22. Februar 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, S. 355-356, Nr. 29, und Tejedor García ./. Spanien , Urteil vom 16. Dezember 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, S. 2796, Nr. 31).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

    Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

    The Court may entertain a fresh assessment of evidence only where the decisions reached by the domestic courts are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, mutatis mutandis, Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, § 33, Series A no. 283-B; Bulut v. Austria, 22 February 1996, § 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Tejedor García v. Spain, 16 December 1997, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII) or where they were issued in "flagrant denial of justice" (compare Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 54, 24 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 68273/14

    GESTUR JÓNSSON AND RAGNAR HALLDÓR HALL v. ICELAND

    In contrast, such a possibility had existed in Ravnsborg v. Sweden (judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B), where the applicant had been fined on the basis of an Article of the Swedish Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence against the proper conduct of court proceedings.

    [8]With reference to Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B, where the presence of a ceiling was an element taken into account in finding that the fine was not criminal in nature (§ 35).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht