Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Public hearing) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Pákozdi v. Hungary
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (16)
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 70216/01
LAAKSONEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
In circumstances where the higher-instance court's judgment is based on an overall assessment of the evidence, altering the applicant's acquittal (which had taken place after a full hearing and receipt of evidence before the lower-instance court), fairness requires that the applicant be secured an opportunity to contest the charge (see Laaksonen v. Finland, no. 70216/01, § 32, 12 April 2007) and give evidence in person (see Suuripää, cited above, § 47).The decisive issue therefore is whether the applicant was not taken by surprise when the Supreme Court decided not only to examine the legality of the decision challenged before it, but also to dispose of the case on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, § 48, ECHR 2001-II; Laaksonen v. Finland, no. 70216/01, § 32, 12 April 2007; Suuripää v. Finland, no. 43151/02, § 46, 12 January 2010; and Cepek, above, § 48; compare and contrast Keskinen and Veljekset Keskinen Oy v. Finland, no. 34721/09, § 40, 5 June 2012).
- EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 34721/09
KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
In order to decide on this question, regard must be had to the nature of the national appeal and revision system, to the scope of the Supreme Court's powers and to the manner in which the applicants" interests were actually presented and protected before the Supreme Court particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by them (see, mutatis mutandis, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 28, Series A no. 34; and Keskinen and Veljekset Keskinen Oy v. Finland, no. 34721/09, § 36, 5 June 2012).The decisive issue therefore is whether the applicant was not taken by surprise when the Supreme Court decided not only to examine the legality of the decision challenged before it, but also to dispose of the case on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, § 48, ECHR 2001-II; Laaksonen v. Finland, no. 70216/01, § 32, 12 April 2007; Suuripää v. Finland, no. 43151/02, § 46, 12 January 2010; and Cepek, above, § 48; compare and contrast Keskinen and Veljekset Keskinen Oy v. Finland, no. 34721/09, § 40, 5 June 2012).
- EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85
HELMERS c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
In order to decide whether there should be a hearing, regard must be had, among other considerations, to the specific features of the proceedings in question and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the higher-instance court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 212-A) and of their importance to the applicant (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 62, ECHR 2006-XII).In addition, the specific features of the proceedings in question and the presentation and protection of the applicant's interests before the court of higher instance are significant for determining whether an oral hearing is required before the court of higher instance (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 212-A, cited in paragraph 33 of the present judgment).
- EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78
Axen ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
An oral hearing before the court of appeal is necessary if that court must assess the facts, the question of guilt or innocence, or the character of the accused (see Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 28, Series A no. 72; Seliwiak, cited above, § 56; and Sibgatullin, cited above, § 36). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
In the past, the Court has inferred a tacit waiver of the right to an oral hearing where applicants failed to avail themselves of the legal possibility to request such a hearing (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, §§ 67-68, Series A no. 171-A). - EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
Regard must be had in assessing these questions to, inter alia, the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests are presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it and their importance for the applicant (see Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 268-B; and Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports 1998-II). - EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01
SOMOGYI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
In this regard, bearing in mind the criminal nature, under the Convention, of the proceedings conducted against the applicant, the Court also refers to its related case-law under Article 46 of the Convention (see among others, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; and Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV). - EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87
FEJDE c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
However, even where the court of appeal has jurisdiction to review the case both as to facts and as to law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 31, Series A no. 212-C). - EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76
Schiesser ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
In order to decide on this question, regard must be had to the nature of the national appeal and revision system, to the scope of the Supreme Court's powers and to the manner in which the applicants" interests were actually presented and protected before the Supreme Court particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by them (see, mutatis mutandis, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 28, Series A no. 34; and Keskinen and Veljekset Keskinen Oy v. Finland, no. 34721/09, § 36, 5 June 2012). - EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04
MALININAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07
All relevant information, particularly regarding the purported suspicions about the applicant's previous conduct, should be put openly before the trial court or tested in an adversarial manner (see Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008). - EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98
Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …
- EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91
FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04
MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97
JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE
- EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94
Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
A ET B c. NORVÈGE
The Suuripää finding was extended to the case of a tax administrative offence in Pákozdi v. Hungary (no. 51269/07, § 39, 25 November 2014). - EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 44164/14
Pharma-Erbe siegt vor EGMR: LG Dresden hat Recht auf faires Verfahren verletzt
Unter Bezugnahme auf die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs in der Rechtssache Pákozdi./. Ungarn (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 51269/07, Rdnr. 27, 25. November 2014) vertrat sie die Auffassung, dass eine mündliche Verhandlung entbehrlich sei, soweit das Gericht die Sache in fairer und angemessener Weise anhand der Stellungnahmen der Verfahrensbeteiligten und sonstiger schriftlicher Materialien klären könne. - EGMR, 09.01.2024 - 77048/17
CSÉFFAI v. HUNGARY
Principles relating to the reassessment of evidence by a higher-level jurisdiction to the detriment of the applicant without holding a hearing in civil (administrative) appeal proceedings are set out in Pákozdi v. Hungary (no. 51269/07, §§ 26-29, 25 November 2014, concerning a tax-law matter). - EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 76959/11
SOCIÉTÉ OXYGÈNE PLUS c. FRANCE
S'agissant du deuxième critère, la Cour prend notamment en considération le point de savoir si la règle juridique en question s'adresse exclusivement à un groupe spécifique ou s'impose à tous par nature (voir, entre autres, Jussila, précité, § 38, et Pákozdi c. Hongrie, no 51269/07, § 20, 25 novembre 2014).