Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAVUZ v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c and 6-3-d Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 46549/99
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, it has to consider whether the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for instance, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 80, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

  Thus, proceedings for leave to appeal or proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even where the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the appeal or cassation court (see the following judgments: Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, § 30; Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 58; Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 31; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 44-45, § 106; and Bulut v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 358, § 41).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

  Thus, proceedings for leave to appeal or proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even where the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the appeal or cassation court (see the following judgments: Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, § 30; Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 58; Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 31; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 44-45, § 106; and Bulut v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 358, § 41).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

  Thus, proceedings for leave to appeal or proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even where the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the appeal or cassation court (see the following judgments: Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, § 30; Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 58; Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 31; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 44-45, § 106; and Bulut v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 358, § 41).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

  The Court notes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1. For this reason, the Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint under the two provisions taken together (see Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 19; Pullar v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, § 45; and Jancikova (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88

  T. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

  The Court reiterates that the right of an accused to participate in person in the trial is a fundamental element of a fair trial (see Colozza v Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27; and T. v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, § 26).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 46549/99

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in each case according to the particular circumstances and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, namely the complexity of the case, the conduct of the authorities and the conduct of the parties (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.05.2016 - C-108/16

  Dworzecki - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …

  30 - Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 8. Juni 2006, Kaya/Österreich, CE:ECHR:2006:0608JUD005469800, § 30, und 27. Mai 2004, Yavuz/Österreich, CE:ECHR:2004:0527JUD004654999, § 49.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.07.2013 - C-60/12

  Baláz - Polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen - …

  Die österreichische Regierung verweist außerdem auf folgende Urteile des EGMR: vom 27. Mai 2004, Yavus/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 46549/99), vom 5. Dezember 2005, Liedermann/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 54272/00), vom 3. Februar 2005, Blum/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 31655/02), vom 8. Juni 2006, Kaya/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 54698/00), vom 5. Oktober 2006, Müller/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 12555/03), vom 7. Dezember 2006, Hauser-Sporn/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 37301/03), und vom 26. Juli 2007, Stempfer/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 18294/03).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 21496/10

  VAN VELZEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In Yavuz v. Austria, no. 46549/99, § 49, 27 May 2004) there had not been any summons sent to the address of the applicant, whereas the judicial authority dealing with the case (the Independent Administrative Panel) had not verified that the applicant was aware of the date of the hearing in a situation in which counsel had specifically requested before the hearing that the applicant be heard in person.