Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKA c. HONGRIE

  Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Accès à un tribunal;Droits et obligations de caractère civil;Décider (civil));Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKA v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Determination (civil));Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKA v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Determination (civil));Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• sueddeutsche.de (Pressemeldung, 23.06.2016)

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

• sueddeutsche.de (Pressebericht, 23.06.2016)

  Ex-Richter gewinnt gegen Regierung

• nzz.ch (Pressemeldung, 23.06.2016)

  Ungarn wegen umstrittener Justizreform verurteilt

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BAKA v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Baka v. Hungary

  [17.06.2015]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ-RR 2017, 833

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (48)

• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  This is further shown by the fact that, should the office be terminated at an earlier stage against that person's consent, namely by way of dismissal, he or she would have standing to apply for judicial review of that decision (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 279-B).

  25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B.

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  The whole makes up the right to a fair trial secured by Article 6 § 1 (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).

  It is well known that in the Golder judgment the Court interpreted the Convention teleologically, for the purpose of identifying the right of access to a court in Article 6 § 1. After noting that the provision in question "does not state a right of access to the courts or tribunals in express terms" (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 28, Series A no. 18), it referred to all of the principles of interpretation contained in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, including the importance of the preamble, which is "very useful for the determination of the "object" and "purpose" of the instrument to be construed" (ibid., § 34).

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  This concept, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and is inherent in all the Articles of the Convention, requires, inter alia, that any interference must in principle be based on an instrument of general application (see, mutatis mutandis, Vistins and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 99, 25 October 2012; see also, mutatis mutandis, concerning legislative interferences and the rule of law, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, §§ 47-50, Series A no. 301-B).

  Thus, in the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment, it noted in general terms that "[t]he principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6... preclude any interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of the dispute" (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B).

 
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  The Court has since reiterated on numerous occasions the importance of the principle of the rule of law in the context of Article 6 of the Convention (see, purely by way of indication, Siegle v. Romania, no. 23456/04, § 32, 16 April 2013; Varniene v. Lithuania, no. 42916/04, § 37, 12 November 2013; Solomun v. Croatia, no. 679/11, § 46, 2 April 2015; Ustimenko v. Ukraine, no. 32053/13, § 46, 29 October 2015; and Amirkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 22343/08, § 33, 3 December 2015), and also of the need to take account of the relevant rules of international law in interpreting and applying the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 100, 102, ECHR 2014).

  Although the Court affirms in the context of Article 2 and 3 cases that "the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio" (see, for example, the case of Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 49, ECHR 2014), exceptions from this principle require a strong justification.

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X, and Boulois, cited above, § 91).

  It is worth noting that in its judgment in the Paksas v. Lithuania case ([GC], no. 34932/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), the Court explained that "Article 13 of the Convention, which does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see, for example, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 85, Series A no. 98; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 113, ECHR 2002-VI; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 137, ECHR 2005-X; and Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 33726/03, § 47, 1 October 2009), likewise cannot require the provision of a remedy allowing a constitutional precedent with statutory force to be challenged" (Paksas, § 114).

• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04

  MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Although these principles have mainly been applied in the context of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 79, ECHR 2003-V (extracts), and El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 151-152, ECHR 2012), the Court observes that there are examples in which they have been applied in respect of other Convention rights (Article 5 in Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, §§ 88-90, 23 February 2012; Article 8 in Fadeyeva, cited above; Article 11 in Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, §§ 68-73, 26 July 2007; and Article 14 in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 177-179, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  In certain instances, only the respondent Government have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting the applicant's allegations; consequently, a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti, non neganti, incumbit probatio is impossible (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 79, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Although these principles have mainly been applied in the context of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 79, ECHR 2003-V (extracts), and El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 151-152, ECHR 2012), the Court observes that there are examples in which they have been applied in respect of other Convention rights (Article 5 in Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, §§ 88-90, 23 February 2012; Article 8 in Fadeyeva, cited above; Article 11 in Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, §§ 68-73, 26 July 2007; and Article 14 in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 177-179, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 32053/13

  USTIMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  The Court has since reiterated on numerous occasions the importance of the principle of the rule of law in the context of Article 6 of the Convention (see, purely by way of indication, Siegle v. Romania, no. 23456/04, § 32, 16 April 2013; Varniene v. Lithuania, no. 42916/04, § 37, 12 November 2013; Solomun v. Croatia, no. 679/11, § 46, 2 April 2015; Ustimenko v. Ukraine, no. 32053/13, § 46, 29 October 2015; and Amirkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 22343/08, § 33, 3 December 2015), and also of the need to take account of the relevant rules of international law in interpreting and applying the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 100, 102, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  27996/06 and 34836/06, §§ 40-41, 54, ECHR 2009; Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2), no. 71525/01, § 103, 26 April 2007; and United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I. Similar principles have been ascertained under the American Convention on Human Rights by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, especially since "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, 5 February 2001 (see Mac-Gregor, "The Constitutionalization of International law in Latin America, Conventionality Control, The New doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights", in AJIL Unbound, 1 November 2015, and the case-law referred to therein).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 64119/00

  KAYASU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  PARLOV-TKALCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 31360/10

  TARBUK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 33726/03

  TSONYO TSONEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 15966/06

  Poyraz ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 34875/07

  ROLAND DUMAS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 679/11

  SOLOMUN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 25.08.2005 - 23695/02

  CLARKE c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 43800/12

  TSANOVA-GECHEVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 51160/06

  DI GIOVANNI c. ITALIE
• EuGH, 06.11.2012 - C-286/12

  Die starke Absenkung des Rentenalters ungarischer Richter stellt eine nicht …
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EuGH, 08.04.2014 - C-288/12

  Durch die vorzeitige Beendigung der Amtszeit des Datenschutzbeauftragten hat …
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 33173/05

  G. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.12.2019 - C-311/18

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe ist der Beschluss 2010/87/EU der …

  Vgl. zum Kern des in Art. 6 EMRK gewährleisteten Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren u. a. EGMR, 25. Mai 1985, Ashingdane/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:1985:0528JUD000822578, §§ 57 und 59), 21. Dezember 2000, Heaney und McGuinness/Irland (CE:ECHR:2000:1221JUD003472097, §§ 55 und 58), und 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112, § 121).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.04.2024 - C-647/21

  D. K. (Dessaisissement d'un juge) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …

  59 Urteil des EGMR vom 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112, § 168).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.05.2021 - C-791/19

  Generalanwalt Tanchev: Der Gerichtshof sollte urteilen, dass das polnische Gesetz …

  88 Vgl. Urteile vom 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112, § 121), und vom 23. Mai 2017, Paluda/Slowakei (CE:ECHR:2017:0523JUD003339212, § 45).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 01.02.2024 - C-53/23

  Asociatia "Forumul Judecatorilor din România" (Associations de magistrats) - …

  Vgl. auch Urteil vom 28. Februar 2013, Überprüfung Arango Jaramillo u. a./EIB (…C-334/12 RX-II, EU:C:2013:134, Rn. 43), und Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) vom 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112, § 120).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-83/19

  Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Bobek verstoßen die vorläufige Ernennung des …

  129 Insoweit scheint die Charta in der Tat einen höheren Schutzstandard vorzusehen als die Rechtsprechung des EGMR, und dies trotz der jüngeren Entwicklung dieser Rechtsprechung z. B. in EGMR, 9. Januar 2013, Volkov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2013:0109JUD002172211, §§ 87 bis 91), EGMR, 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112 [Große Kammer], §§ 107 ff.), EGMR, 23. Mai 2017, Paluda/Slowakei (CE:ECHR:2017:0523JUD003339212 [Dritte Sektion], §§ 33 bis 35), und EGMR, 25. September 2018, Denisov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2018:0925JUD007663911 [Große Kammer], §§ 44 ff.).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.05.2017 - C-64/16

  Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. …

  Zu Richter betreffenden Rechtsstreitigkeiten im Hinblick auf Art. 6 Abs. 1 der EMRK vgl. EGMR, 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112, §§ 102 ff.).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.12.2020 - C-896/19

  Generalanwalt Hogan: Das Unionsrecht steht nationalen Verfassungsbestimmungen, …

  49 Vgl. entsprechend Urteil "Unabhängigkeit des Obersten Gerichts" (…Rn. 114), EGMR, 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Hungary, CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112, § 121, und EGMR, 6. November 2018, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá/Portugal, CE:ECHR:2018:1106JUD005539113, §§ 212 bis 214.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-355/19

  Asociatia "Forumul Judecatorilor din România" u.a. - Vorlage zur …

  129 Insoweit scheint die Charta in der Tat einen höheren Schutzstandard vorzusehen als die Rechtsprechung des EGMR, und dies trotz der jüngeren Entwicklung dieser Rechtsprechung z. B. in EGMR, 9. Januar 2013, Volkov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2013:0109JUD002172211, §§ 87 bis 91), EGMR, 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112 [Große Kammer], §§ 107 ff.), EGMR, 23. Mai 2017, Paluda/Slowakei (CE:ECHR:2017:0523JUD003339212 [Dritte Sektion], §§ 33 bis 35), und EGMR, 25. September 2018, Denisov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2018:0925JUD007663911 [Große Kammer], §§ 44 ff.).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-291/19

  SO - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Vertrag über den Beitritt der Republik …

  129 Insoweit scheint die Charta in der Tat einen höheren Schutzstandard vorzusehen als die Rechtsprechung des EGMR, und dies trotz der jüngeren Entwicklung dieser Rechtsprechung z. B. in EGMR, 9. Januar 2013, Volkov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2013:0109JUD002172211, §§ 87 bis 91), EGMR, 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112 [Große Kammer], §§ 107 ff.), EGMR, 23. Mai 2017, Paluda/Slowakei (CE:ECHR:2017:0523JUD003339212 [Dritte Sektion], §§ 33 bis 35), und EGMR, 25. September 2018, Denisov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2018:0925JUD007663911 [Große Kammer], §§ 44 ff.).