Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DE HAAN c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DE HAAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 18.05.1995 - 22839/93
• EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  However, the possibility exists that a higher or the highest tribunal may, in some circumstances, make reparation for an initial violation of one of the Convention's provisions (see the De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 19, § 33).

  It is true that the Court in its De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984 considered the fact that a judge has acquired before the hearing a particularly detailed knowledge of the file as a factor which might make his impartiality suspect in the eyes of the accused (Series A no. 86, p. 16, § 29).

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  In addition, the Court had found no violation of the impartiality requirement in the Diennet case (Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A), even though three of the seven members of the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Ordre des médecins to whom the case had been referred by the Court of Cassation following an appeal on points of law had taken part in the decision appealed against.

  There the Court held that "no ground for legitimate suspicion can be discerned in the fact that three of the seven members of the disciplinary section had taken part in the first decision" (Series A no. 325-A, p. 16, § 38).

• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79

  FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  Before the Court's judgment in the case of Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands (judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99), such an objection could only be based on certain formal grounds (ibid., p. 10, § 19).

  The Court recalls that in its Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands judgment of 29 May 1986 (Series A no. 99) it found Article 6 § 1 to be applicable under its civil head to proceedings of the type here in issue concerning a dispute under the same Act (loc. cit., pp. 11-16, §§ 25-40).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  On the other hand, it held in its Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994: "His detailed knowledge of the case did not mean that he was prejudiced in a way that prevented him from being impartial when the case came to trial" (Series A no. 286-B, p. 39, § 38).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  Although the Court has emphasised that "in deciding whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important but not decisive" (see the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, § 31, and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 48), the Court has nevertheless in several cases laid considerable stress on the subjective perception of the accused or other party to the proceedings, thus giving the application of the objective-impartiality test a predominantly subjective character (see, in particular, the Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 32, § 26).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  Although the Court has emphasised that "in deciding whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important but not decisive" (see the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, § 31, and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 48), the Court has nevertheless in several cases laid considerable stress on the subjective perception of the accused or other party to the proceedings, thus giving the application of the objective-impartiality test a predominantly subjective character (see, in particular, the Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 32, § 26).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  The Court referred to its Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, where it had held that "it cannot be stated as a general rule resulting from the obligation to be impartial that a superior court which sets aside an administrative or judicial decision is bound to send the case back to a different jurisdictional authority or to a differently composed branch of that authority" (Series A no. 13, p. 40, § 97).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  Although the Court has emphasised that "in deciding whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important but not decisive" (see the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, § 31, and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 48), the Court has nevertheless in several cases laid considerable stress on the subjective perception of the accused or other party to the proceedings, thus giving the application of the objective-impartiality test a predominantly subjective character (see, in particular, the Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 32, § 26).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  In this case, too, "one must... look beyond the appearances... and concentrate on the realities of the situation" (De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 23, § 48).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  In conclusion, although both Netherlands law as applicable at the time and the "policy" of the Groningen Appeals Tribunal (see paragraph 35 of the judgment) certainly do not deserve our admiration, in view of the reality behind the appearance in this case and in view of what I consider to be the most directly relevant case-law of the Court, and given the need to maintain a degree of consistency in the case-law, I find that there has been no violation of Article 6. When the Court takes too casuistic an approach in its objective-impartiality test, basing distinctions on elements the distinctive character of which is not self-evident, it does not serve legal certainty and fails to give the necessary guidance to the national courts and legislatures (see the separate opinion of Judge De Meyer in the above-mentioned Bulut case and the concurring opinion of Judge Martens in the case of Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 16).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD c. PAYS-BAS