Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90, 52/1993/447/526   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1995,15857
EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90, 52/1993/447/526 (https://dejure.org/1995,15857)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.04.1995 - 16922/90, 52/1993/447/526 (https://dejure.org/1995,15857)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. April 1995 - 16922/90, 52/1993/447/526 (https://dejure.org/1995,15857)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,15857) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 57, Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
    Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 (droit d'accčs) Violation de l'Art. 6-1 (publiquement) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FISCHER v. AUSTRIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 57, Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Art. 6-1 (right of access) Violation of Art. 6-1 (publicly) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (119)Neu Zitiert selbst (38)

  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    The Government drew a parallel between the instant case and the cases of Ringeisen v. Austria (judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13) and Ettl and Others v. Austria (judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117), in which the Court had held that the reservation applied in proceedings before a court dealing with questions of administrative law.

    Having regard to the mutual trust to which I referred above, the Court took the view for some while that Austria's reservation covered administrative proceedings which now are caught by Article 6 (art. 6) (see, for example, the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 40-41, para. 98, and the Ettl and Others v. Austria judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, p. 19, para. 42).

    [70] See the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, para.

  • EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

    BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    This conclusion was, in the applicant's view, consistent with the ruling given by the European Court in the case of Belilos v. Switzerland (judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 26, para. 55).

    This is in keeping with the Court's tendency, first shown in the Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988 (Series A no. 132), to restrict the scope of reservations and interpretative declarations, and even to eliminate them as far as possible.

    63; the Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 31, para.

  • EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

    BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    53-56; the Beaumartin v. France judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-B, pp.

    45; and the Beaumartin v. France judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-B, pp.

     
  • EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

    AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    [14] AGOSI v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108.

    [51] AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 20, para.

  • EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

    HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    [10] See inter alia: the Herczegfalvy v. Austria judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 27, para.

    [41] Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 27, para.

  • EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

    VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    29. As the latest authorities for the power to give a binding decision being one of the essential elements of the notion of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 (art. 6), see the Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 16, para.

    [49] As the latest authority, see the Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 16, para.

  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

    ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    The Court agrees with the applicant and the Commission that the Austrian Constitutional Court does not have the requisite jurisdiction (see the Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 13, para. 30, and the Ortenberg judgment previously cited, p. 50, para. 32).

    In answering this question in the affirmative (paragraph 34 of its judgment), the Court has evidently followed its Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993 (Series A no. 268-A) and its Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994 (Series A no. 295-B) (see paragraph 32 of the judgment).

  • EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

    ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention it is necessary that, in the determination of "civil rights and obligations", decisions taken by administrative authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article (art. 6-1) be subject to subsequent control by a "judicial body that has full jurisdiction" (see the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29, and, as the most recent authority, the Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, pp. 49-50, para. 31).

    [4] For cases concerning civil rights and obligations, see inter alia: the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58; the O. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120-A, pp.

  • EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

    ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention it is necessary that, in the determination of "civil rights and obligations", decisions taken by administrative authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article (art. 6-1) be subject to subsequent control by a "judicial body that has full jurisdiction" (see the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29, and, as the most recent authority, the Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, pp. 49-50, para. 31).

    In answering this question in the affirmative (paragraph 34 of its judgment), the Court has evidently followed its Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993 (Series A no. 268-A) and its Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994 (Series A no. 295-B) (see paragraph 32 of the judgment).

  • EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

    Obermeier ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
    That being so and as the case bore greater similarity to the Zumtobel case (previously cited) than to the Obermeier v. Austria case (judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179), the requirements of Article 6 para.

    30; the Obermeier v. Austria judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179; the Oerlemans v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 219, pp.

  • BVerfG, 07.12.1976 - 1 BvR 460/72

    Flugblatt

  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13704/88

    SCHWABE v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

    FEY v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

    MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

    LEANDER c. SUČDE

  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

    BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

    BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

    VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

    CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

    LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  • EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

    ERIKSSON c. SUČDE

  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

    ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

    PUDAS c. SUČDE

  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUČDE

  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

    OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

    LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13023/87

    SALESI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

    CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 27.11.1991 - 12565/86

    OERLEMANS c. PAYS-BAS

  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

    FREDIN c. SUČDE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

    GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

    1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention - as is the case in this instance with the district authority and the regional government (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above) - must be subject to subsequent control by a "judicial body that has full jurisdiction" (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29; Öztürk, previously cited, pp. 21-22, para. 56; and Fischer v. Austria of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 17, para. 28).

    For the rest, I refer to the methodological objections to this "test" that I raised in paragraph 18 of my separate opinion in the case of Fischer v. Austria (judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312).

  • EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 55391/13

    RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

    The right to a public hearing implies a public hearing before the relevant court (see, inter alia, mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, § 21, Series A no. 283-A, and Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 12675/05

    GSELL c. SUISSE

    Dans cette hypothčse, le justiciable doit disposer d'un recours devant un organe judiciaire indépendant, doté de la plénitude de juridiction et offrant les garanties de l'article 6 § 1 (voir, notamment, les arręts Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique, 10 février 1983, § 29, série A no 58, et Öztürk c. Allemagne, 21 février 1984, § 56, série A no 73) Cela dit, il importe, d'une maničre générale, que soit exercé un contrôle complet de la légalité et que le juge national soit compétent pour les points de fait comme pour les questions de droit (Zumtobel c. Autriche, 21 septembre 1993, §§ 29-32, série A no 268-A, Fischer c. Autriche, 26 avril 1995, §§ 28-34, série A no 312, et Schweizer c. Suisse (déc.), no 61702, 10 juillet 2006).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht