Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WERNER c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire jointe au fond (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WERNER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 02.09.1994 - 21835/93
• EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 21835/93
• EKMR, 03.09.1996 - 21835/93
• EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  As I have already observed on many occasions (see, in particular, my separate opinion in the case of Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312), in certain proceedings and especially those relating to claims for compensation for detention pending trial (or in similar cases) a public hearing and public delivery of the judgment are of no value either to the individuals concerned or to the general public.
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  Furthermore, the principle of equality of arms - in the sense of a "fair balance" between the parties - requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among other authorities, the Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, § 33, and the Ankerl v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1567-68, § 38).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  The Court will examine the complaint in the light of the whole of paragraph 1 of Article 6 because the principle of equality of arms is only one feature of the wider concept of a fair trial, which also includes the fundamental right that proceedings should be adversarial (see the Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 25, § 63).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  The Government, on the other hand, considered that in failing to apply for a public hearing, Mr Werner had unequivocally waived his right to one, and they referred to the Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden case (see the judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  On this point the present case differs fundamentally from the cases of Håkansson and Sturesson (see the judgment, previously cited, pp. 20-21, § 67), Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland (see the judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58), Zumtobel v. Austria (see the judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 14, § 34) and Pauger (see the judgment, previously cited, p. 896, § 60), in which the relevant law expressly made provision, on certain conditions, for the possibility of a public hearing.
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  On this point the present case differs fundamentally from the cases of Håkansson and Sturesson (see the judgment, previously cited, pp. 20-21, § 67), Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland (see the judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58), Zumtobel v. Austria (see the judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 14, § 34) and Pauger (see the judgment, previously cited, p. 896, § 60), in which the relevant law expressly made provision, on certain conditions, for the possibility of a public hearing.
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity 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, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  Lastly, in the Sutter v. Switzerland case (see the judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, pp. 14-15, § 34) it held that public delivery of a decision of the Military Court of Cassation was unnecessary, as public access to that decision was ensured by other means, namely the possibility of seeking a copy of the judgment from the court registry and its subsequent publication in an official collection of case-law.
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78

  Axen ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  In the Axen v. Germany case (see the judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 72, p. 14, § 32), it held that public delivery of a decision of a supreme court was unnecessary given that the judgments of the lower courts had been pronounced publicly.
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85

  ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  For a right to be a civil one, it is sufficient that the subject matter of the action should be pecuniary and that the action should be founded on an alleged infringement of rights which are likewise pecuniary rights (see the Editions Périscope v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, p. 66, § 40).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS