Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97 und 35974/97 |
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
- EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36337/97
- EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97 und 35974/97
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).
- EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 12643/02
MOSER v. AUSTRIA
Referring to B. and P. v. the United Kingdom (nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 38, ECHR 2001-III), the Government argued that court proceedings involving custody decisions of minors were prime examples of such justified exclusion of the public. - EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 55391/13
RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ c. PORTUGAL
Par la transparence qu'elle donne à l'administration de la justice, elle aide à atteindre le but de l'article 6 § 1: le procès équitable, dont la garantie compte parmi les principes fondamentaux de toute société démocratique (Diennet c. France, 26 septembre 1995, § 33, série A no 325-A, B. et P. c. Royaume-Uni, nos 36337/97 et 35974/97, § 36, CEDH 2001-III, Olujic, précité, § 70, Martinie c. France [GC], no 58675/00, § 39, CEDH 2006-VI, et Nikolova et Vandova c. Bulgarie, no 20688/04, § 67, 17 décembre 2013). - EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 20688/04
NIKOLOVA ET VANDOVA c. BULGARIE
By rendering the administration of justice visible, it contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society (see Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 325-A; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-III; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, § 70, 5 February 2009; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-VI). - EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05
FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA
For instance, the form of publicity given to a "judgment" under the domestic law of the respondent State must be assessed in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question, having regard to their entirety, and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1 (see Pretto and Others, cited above, § 26; Axen, cited above, § 31; Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 33 in fine, Series A no. 74; Werner, cited above, § 55 in limine; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III; and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, § 32, ECHR 2008). - EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-..., and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02
ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA
Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III, with further references). - EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 55546/09
SAMPECH c. ITALIE
Par la transparence qu'elle donne à l'administration de la justice, elle aide à atteindre le but de l'article 6 § 1 précité, à savoir le procès équitable, dont la garantie compte parmi les principes fondamentaux de toute société démocratique (Martinie c. France [GC], no 58675/00, § 39, CEDH 2006-VI ; voir également Diennet c. France, 26 septembre 1995, § 33, série A no 325-A, B. et P. c. Royaume-Uni, nos 36337/97 et 35974/97, § 36, CEDH 2001-III, et Olujic c. Croatie, no 22330/05, § 70, 5 février 2009). - EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08
JULIN v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03
ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05
WELKE AND BIALEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 24016/05
EKER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 28923/95
LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 36908/13
N.S. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 30373/13
MRAOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09
RUMMI v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 32075/09
LORENZETTI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 52438/08
KARAKUS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 24273/04
NEVSKAYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06
GABRIEL v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03
BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 64056/00
VOLKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 12643/02
MOSER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR - 44616/22 (anhängig)
UÇANKAN c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
CHAUSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06
STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 14040/03
KRESTOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 56745/00
BLACK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 58364/00
LÜCK contre l'ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 11297/09
DADASHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 9904/09
YUDIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 18498/04
KHRABROVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 20702/04
RAKS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 61540/09
T.S. AND D.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 20437/05
SHAGIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 39547/98
NIEDERBÖSTER contre l'ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 14524/06
TAMBURINI v. FRANCE