Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KINCSES v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kincses v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KINCSES v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  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, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  Finally, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  It follows that in the circumstances of the present case the requirement of protection of the interest of the proper administration of justice and the dignity of the legal profession is not to be weighed against the interest in the open discussion of matters of public concern or freedom of the press (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  Such a position explains the usual restrictions on the conduct of members of the Bar (see Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 54, Series A no. 285-A).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  This is reflected in a number of provisions of the Convention, including Article 6. Accordingly, here a more extensive European supervision corresponds to a less discretionary power of appreciation (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 59, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  In so doing the Court must ascertain whether the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, among many other authorities, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298) and that a fair balance was struck between, on the one hand, the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and, on the other hand, the protection of the applicant's freedom of expression (see Žugic v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, § 42, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  MARIAPORI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  Furthermore, freedom of expression protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, for example, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 174, ECHR 2005-XIII; and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 62, 6 July 2010).

• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 11553/11

  PADLEWSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the Court's case-law (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Malek v. Austria, no. 60553/00, § 48-49, 12 June 2003; Schmidt v. Austria, no. 513/05, § 24-29, 17 July 2008; Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, § 44-50, 27 January 2015; and Gollner v. Austria, no. 49455/99, § 24-25, 17 January 2002), the Court finds that the overall duration of the proceedings exceeded a "reasonable time".
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 49379/13

  CIORHAN v. ROMANIA

  Having regard to the substance of the applicant's complaints, the Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, ECHR 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 10 alone (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, § 16, 27 January 2015, and Hasan Yazici v. Turkey, no. 40877/07, §§ 40-41, 15 April 2014).