Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G. v. FINLAND

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 33173/05

  As to the assessment of evidence, the Court reiterates that, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 33173/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 33173/05

  As to the assessment of evidence, the Court reiterates that, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).

• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

  Whilst the Court stated in the Vilho Eskelinen judgment that its reasoning in that case was limited to the situation of civil servants (§ 61 of the judgment), the Grand Chamber notes that the criteria established in that judgment have been applied by different Chambers of the Court to disputes regarding judges (see G. v. Finland, no. 33173/05, 27 January 2009; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, ECHR 2013; Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, 9 July 2013; and Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, 15 September 2015), including presidents of Supreme Courts (see Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009, and Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 4006/21

  MORENO AGUIRRE c. ANDORRE

  Ces critères sont aussi applicables aux litiges concernant des juges (ibidem, § 104, G. c. Finlande, no 33173/05, 27 janvier 2009, 01eksandr Volkov c. Ukraine, no 21722/11, CEDH 2013, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, 9 juillet 2013, et Tsanova-Gecheva c. Bulgarie, no 43800/12, 15 septembre 2015), y compris des litiges relatifs au recrutement ou à la nomination (Juricic c. Croatie, no 58222/09, 26 juillet 2011), à la carrière ou à la promotion.