Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97 und 35974/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,23114
EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97 und 35974/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,23114)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.04.2001 - 36337/97 und 35974/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,23114)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. April 2001 - 36337/97 und 35974/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,23114)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,23114) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    B. ET P. c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10 MRK
    Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 quant à l'absence d'audience publique Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 quant au manque de jugement public Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 10 (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10 MRK
    No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to lack of a public hearing No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to lack of public judgment Not necessary to examine Art. 10 (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

  • IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

    Fälle B. und P. gegen das Vereinigte Königreich

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 ... (39)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

    Sutter ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97
    By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, a fair hearing, the guarantee of which is one of the foundations of a democratic society (see Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 12, § 26).

    Further, in Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 43, § 90) the Court, noting both the terms of Article 17 of the Convention and the importance of the principle of publication, which had been emphasised in Sutter v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74), rejected the respondent Government's argument that the principle could be regarded as subject to an implied limitation in cases in which disciplinary offences by prisoners were adjudicated on.

    As pointed out in Sutter v. Switzerland (judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 12, § 26):.

  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

    CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97
    However, while the Court agrees that Article 6 § 1 states a general rule that civil proceedings, inter alia, should take place in public, it does not find it inconsistent with this provision for a State to designate an entire class of case as an exception to the general rule where considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or where required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 42, §§ 87-88), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see, for example, Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII).

    Further, in Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 43, § 90) the Court, noting both the terms of Article 17 of the Convention and the importance of the principle of publication, which had been emphasised in Sutter v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74), rejected the respondent Government's argument that the principle could be regarded as subject to an implied limitation in cases in which disciplinary offences by prisoners were adjudicated on.

    In support of this proposition the majority refer to Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 42, §§ 87-88).

  • EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

    RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97
    However, while the Court agrees that Article 6 § 1 states a general rule that civil proceedings, inter alia, should take place in public, it does not find it inconsistent with this provision for a State to designate an entire class of case as an exception to the general rule where considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or where required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 42, §§ 87-88), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see, for example, Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

    PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97
    It is, moreover, clear from the case-law of the Court that, despite its unqualified terms, the requirement that the judgment shall be pronounced publicly has been interpreted with some flexibility, the Court emphasising that "in each case the form of publicity to be given to the "judgment" under the domestic law of the respondent State must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1" (See Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 12, § 26; and see, most recently, Szücs v. Austria and Werner v. Austria, judgments of 24 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII).
  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78

    Axen ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97
    Thus, for example, in Axen v. Germany (judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 72, p. 14, § 32), public delivery of a decision of a Supreme Court was held to be unnecessary, the requirements of Article 6 being met by the public pronouncement of the judgments of the lower courts.
  • EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 44585/10

    Axel Springer AG ./. Deutschland

    In diesem Zusammenhang sei daran erinnert, dass Artikel 6 Absatz 1 der Konvention vorsieht, dass Presse und Öffentlichkeit während des ganzen oder eines Teiles des Verfahrens ausgeschlossen werden können, wenn die Interessen von Jugendlichen es verlangen (siehe z.B. B. und P. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Nr. 36337/97 und 35974/97, Rdnr. 37, CEDH 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

    ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    En outre, il est établi dans la jurisprudence de la Cour que, même dans un contexte pénal où la publicité serait escomptée, il peut parfois se révéler nécessaire au regard de l'article 6 de limiter la transparence et la publicité de la procédure, par exemple pour protéger un témoin ou sa vie privée ou pour promouvoir le libre échange d'informations et d'opinions dans l'intérêt de la justice (B. et P. c. Royaume-Uni, nos 36337/97 et 35974/97, § 37, CEDH 2001-III).

    Ainsi, elle a estimé qu'il convenait, dans chaque cas, d'apprécier à la lumière des particularités de la procédure dont il s'agit, et en fonction du but et de l'objet de l'article 6 § 1, la forme de publicité du « jugement'prévue par le droit interne de l'Etat en cause (Pretto et autres c. Italie, arrêt du 8 décembre 1983, série A no 71, p. 12, § 26 ; B. et P. c Royaume-Uni, nos 36337/97 et 35974/97, §§ 45-46, CEDH 2001-III).

  • EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 45983/99

    KAPLAN v. AUSTRIA

    Referring to the cases of B. and P. v the United Kingdom (nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, §§ 38-41, ECHR 2001-III), the Government submitted that court proceedings involving custody decisions of minors were prime examples of such justified exclusion.

    Further, as regards civil proceedings, the Court does not find it inconsistent with Article 6 § 1 for a State to designate an entire class of cases as an exception to the general rule of public hearings if this is considered necessary in the interests of morals, public order or national security or required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties (see Campell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, §§ 87-88; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-III), although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court's control (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII; and B. and P., cited above).

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