Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRUGGER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (lack of oral hearing) Not necessary to examine other complaints under Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 76293/01

  The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19-20, § 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 76293/01

  As the Austrian reservation in respect of Article 6 § 1 concerning the requirement that hearings be public, has been found to be invalid (see, Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 29, ECHR 2000-X), the applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing before the first and only tribunal examining his case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, Fredin v. Sweden (no.2), judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, pp10-11, §§ 21-22; Fischer, cited above, p. 20-21, § 44; Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, pp.
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 76293/01

  The applicant did not contest that the Administrative Court qualifies as a tribunal, and there is no indication in the file that the Administrative Court's scope of review was insufficient in the circumstances of the case (see, for instance, Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp. 17-18, §§ 30-34 with further references).

• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 33060/10

  Vertretungsverbot gegen einen Anwalt ohne vorherige Durchführung einer mündlichen …

  32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 56, ECHR 2002-VII; Brugger v. Austria, no. 76293/01, § 31, 26 January 2006, with further references).
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 19844/08

  BECKER v. AUSTRIA

  In this respect the Court notes that it has found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in a number of similar cases (see, for instance, Gabriel v. Austria, no. 34821/06, § 31, 1 April 2010; Koottummel v. Austria, no. 49616/06, § 21, 10 December 2009; Emmer-Reissig v. Austria, no. 11032/04, § 31, 10 May 2007; Hofbauer v Austria, no. 7401/04, § 30, 10 May 2007; Brugger v. Austria, no. 76293/01, § 25, 26 January 2006; Schelling v. Austria, no. 55193/00, § 33, 10 November 2005).

  Further, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant may have sustained in the present case (Brugger v. Austria, no. 76293/01, § 31, 26 January 2006).