Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOROZHKO AND POZHARSKIY v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 14659/04
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04, 16855/04

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04

  The Court has determined the existence or absence of impartiality of a judge according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction or interest of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is, by ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see, for example, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 118, ECHR 2005-...; Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV; and Piersack v. Belgium, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, § 30).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04

  However, such a waiver must be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any important public interest (see, for example, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66, and Mikolenko v. Estonia (dec.), no. 16944/03, 5 January 2006).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04

  The Court reiterates that it is of fundamental importance in a democratic society that the courts inspire confidence in the public and above all, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, in the accused (see Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 27).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04

  In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see Micallef, cited above, § 75; and De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, § 26).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04

  What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Micallef v. Malta, no. 17056/06, § 74, 15 January 2008; Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 44, ECHR 2000-XII; and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 951-52, § 58).

• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  SIGURÐUR EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  As to the subjective test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (Dorozhko and Pozharskiy v. Estonia (nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, § 51, 24 April 2008; see also Kyprianou, cited above, § 119, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 63246/10

  NICHOLAS v. CYPRUS

  In the present case, although domestic law provides for the possibility of raising an objection to a judge's participation in a case, there is nothing to show in concreto that the applicant or the lawyer representing him before the Supreme Court were actually aware of the connection between A.K. and the defendant company's lawyer at the time that the appeal was pending (see, mutatis mutandis, Dorozhko and Pozhaskiy v. Estonia, nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, §§ 48-49, 24 April 2008 and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 51, Series A no. 204).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 8402/17

  MALIC v. CROATIA

  While an automatic disqualification of all judges at national level who have personal ties with the employees of the parties in given proceedings was not always called for (compare Dorozhko and Pozhaskiy v. Estonia, nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, § 53, 24 April 2008), the nature of those personal links is of importance when determining whether the applicant's fears were objectively justified (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 102, ECHR 2009; Mitrov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 45959/09, § 54, 2 June 2016; and Ramljak v. Croatia, no. 5856/13, 27 June 2017).