Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOVAC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 10 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.03.2010 - 49910/06
• EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06
• EGMR - 49910/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  The phrase "authority of the judiciary" includes, in particular, the notion that the courts are, and are accepted by the public at large as being, the proper forum for the ascertainment of legal rights and obligations and the settlement of disputes relative thereto; further, that the public at large have respect for and confidence in the courts" capacity to fulfil that function (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 55, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, for example, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-II, and Skalka, cited above, § 35).
• EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88

  RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  Relying on the Court's case law, in particular its judgments in the Ravnsborg and Putz cases (Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B, and Putz v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I), the Government averred that the measures that had been ordered by the domestic courts under the rules sanctioning disorderly conduct in court proceedings did not fall under Article 6 of the Convention, since they were akin to the exercise of disciplinary powers.

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 65022/01

  ZAICEVS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  The Court reiterates that the question whether the criminal head of Article 6 applies to contempt of court proceedings has to be assessed in the light of the three alternative criteria laid down by the Court in the Engel case (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22): (a) the classification of the offence under the domestic law, (b) the nature of the offence and (c) the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring (see Ravnsborg, cited above, § 30; Putz, cited above, § 31; T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, § 61, ECHR 2000-XI; Kubli, cited above; Jurík v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 50237/99, 18 March 2003; Kyprianou, cited above, § 31; Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, § 31, ECHR 2007-IX (extracts), and Veriter v. France, no. 25308/94, Commission decision of 2 September 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 86-B, pp.
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  Furthermore, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and the severity of the sanction imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see, for example, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006, and Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 56, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  Furthermore, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and the severity of the sanction imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see, for example, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006, and Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 56, ECHR 2007-I).
• EKMR, 02.09.1996 - 25308/94

  VERITER contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  The Court reiterates that the question whether the criminal head of Article 6 applies to contempt of court proceedings has to be assessed in the light of the three alternative criteria laid down by the Court in the Engel case (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22): (a) the classification of the offence under the domestic law, (b) the nature of the offence and (c) the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring (see Ravnsborg, cited above, § 30; Putz, cited above, § 31; T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, § 61, ECHR 2000-XI; Kubli, cited above; Jurík v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 50237/99, 18 March 2003; Kyprianou, cited above, § 31; Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, § 31, ECHR 2007-IX (extracts), and Veriter v. France, no. 25308/94, Commission decision of 2 September 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 86-B, pp.