Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55657
EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,55657)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.07.2011 - 58222/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,55657)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juli 2011 - 58222/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,55657)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55657) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (28)

  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    Where cases were better dealt with in writing than in oral argument, the Court had held that it was "understandable that in this sphere the national authorities should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy" (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263).

    A waiver can be made explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, for example, Döry, cited above, § 37; Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 34, 12 November 2002; Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, § 66; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 58).

    It must therefore be considered that she unequivocally waived her right to a hearing (see Schuler-Zgraggen, cited above, § 58, Series A no. 263; Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 34, Series A no. 268-A; Fischer, cited above, § 44, Series A no. 312; Döry, cited above, § 38; Lundevall, cited above, § 35; and Sikic v. Croatia, no. 9143/08, § 29, 15 July 2010).

  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

    FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    The Court further reiterates that the right to a public hearing generally includes a right to an oral hearing (see, for example, Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312, and Döry, cited above, § 37).

    It must therefore be considered that she unequivocally waived her right to a hearing (see Schuler-Zgraggen, cited above, § 58, Series A no. 263; Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 34, Series A no. 268-A; Fischer, cited above, § 44, Series A no. 312; Döry, cited above, § 38; Lundevall, cited above, § 35; and Sikic v. Croatia, no. 9143/08, § 29, 15 July 2010).

  • EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

    A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    Therefore, the absence of a remedy against the Constitutional Court's decision does not raise an issue under Article 13 of the Convention (see Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II).
     
  • EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

    HERMI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    Where the proceedings before higher courts involve only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, an oral and public hearing is generally not required, provided that such a hearing was held or waived at first instance (see, among many other authorities, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, §§ 27 and 31, Series A no. 134; Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 60-61, ECHR 2006-XII, and Döry, cited above, § 40).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 74459/01

    NOVOTKA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    In applying these principles to Constitutional Courts the Court has held that a hearing was normally not required in proceedings before such courts because, having been limited to an examination of constitutional issues, they had entailed an assessment not of points of fact but of points of law (see, for example, Zippel v. Germany (dec.), no. 30470/96, 23 October 1997; Siegl v. Austria (dec.), no. 36075/97, 8 February 2000; Weh and Weh v. Austria (dec.), no. 38544/97, 4 July 2002; Breierova and Others v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002; Milatová and Others, cited above, § 62; Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 74459/01, 8 November 2005; Prischl v. Austria, no. 2881/04, §§ 20-22, 26 April 2007; and, by contrast, Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, §§ 47-53, 14 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

    MARTINIE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    By rendering the administration of justice visible, 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, Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 25, Series A no. 72; Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71, and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-...).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 2881/04

    PRISCHL v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    In applying these principles to Constitutional Courts the Court has held that a hearing was normally not required in proceedings before such courts because, having been limited to an examination of constitutional issues, they had entailed an assessment not of points of fact but of points of law (see, for example, Zippel v. Germany (dec.), no. 30470/96, 23 October 1997; Siegl v. Austria (dec.), no. 36075/97, 8 February 2000; Weh and Weh v. Austria (dec.), no. 38544/97, 4 July 2002; Breierova and Others v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002; Milatová and Others, cited above, § 62; Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 74459/01, 8 November 2005; Prischl v. Austria, no. 2881/04, §§ 20-22, 26 April 2007; and, by contrast, Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, §§ 47-53, 14 October 2010).
  • EKMR, 18.12.1980 - 8603/79

    CROCIANI, PALMIOTTI, TANASSI, LEFEBVRE D'OVIDIO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    8603/79, 8722/79, 8723/79 & 8729/79 (joined), Commission decision of 18 December 1980, DR 22, p. 224, § 15).
  • EKMR, 11.04.1991 - 14644/89

    TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD ; NEIL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    To the extent that the applicant may be understood to complain of the absence of a remedy against the Constitutional Court's decision of 30 April 2009, the Court reiterates that where, as in the instant case, the applicant alleges a violation of the rights conferred by the Convention by the last-instance judicial authority of the domestic legal system, the application of Article 13 is implicitly restricted (see, mutatis mutandis, Times Newspapers Ltd. and Andrew Neil v. the United Kingdom, no. 14644/89, Commission's report of 8 October 1991, Decisions and Reports (DR) 73, p. 41 at p. 58, and Crociani et al.
  • EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 30470/96

    ZIPPEL v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
    In applying these principles to Constitutional Courts the Court has held that a hearing was normally not required in proceedings before such courts because, having been limited to an examination of constitutional issues, they had entailed an assessment not of points of fact but of points of law (see, for example, Zippel v. Germany (dec.), no. 30470/96, 23 October 1997; Siegl v. Austria (dec.), no. 36075/97, 8 February 2000; Weh and Weh v. Austria (dec.), no. 38544/97, 4 July 2002; Breierova and Others v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002; Milatová and Others, cited above, § 62; Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 74459/01, 8 November 2005; Prischl v. Austria, no. 2881/04, §§ 20-22, 26 April 2007; and, by contrast, Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, §§ 47-53, 14 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

    H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

    PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78

    Axen ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

    ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

    PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99

    PITKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 28394/95

    DÖRY v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 57795/00

    PURSIHEIMO v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00

    MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

    JOSEPHIDES v. CYPRUS

  • EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 28301/03

    S. H. v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 20774/05

    FIUME c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

    PENTTINEN v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

    BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

    DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

    JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

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