Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BAKA v. HUNGARY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of ... - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- taz.de (Pressebericht, 28.05.2014)
Rechter Richtersturz nicht rechtens
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
- EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11
HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
Only the post-Eskelinen case-law should be taken into consideration in respect of judges" employment disputes (see Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009, and Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012).The Court notes that the status which the applicant enjoyed as President of the Supreme Court did not deprive him of the protection of Article 10 (see Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 149, 20 November 2012).
- EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66529/11
N.K.M. v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
They also referred to other examples of legislation targeting individuals, retroactive legislation (see N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, 14 May 2013) and other legislative measures threatening the independence of the judiciary (such as the right of the president of the National Judicial Office to transfer cases).Nor can it be argued that it was definitely payable (see Volkov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21722/11, 18 October 2011; see conversely, N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, 14 May 2013).
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98
KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
Moreover, having regard in particular to the growing importance attached to the separation of powers (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 193, ECHR 2003-VI, and Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 78, ECHR 2002-IV) and the importance of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, any interference with the freedom of expression of a judge in a position such as the applicant's calls for close scrutiny on the part of the Court (see Harabin (dec.), no. 62584/00, 29 June 2004).
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-I). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). - EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 51041/99
SAYGILI ET SEYMAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
The Court reiterates that the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II, § 95, and Kudeshkina, cited above, § 83) are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10. The absence of an effective judicial review of the impugned measure may also lead to the violation of Article 10 (see Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006, and Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-56, 20 October 2009). - EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98
Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see Hans-Adam von Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 91, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
When considering whether such a measure pursued a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, it bears reiterating that the right to freedom of expression has as its fundamental purpose the safeguarding of the democratic process, the "rule of law" being one of the "fundamental principles of a democratic society" (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 55, Series A no. 28). - EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 64119/00
KAYASU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
The Court reiterates that the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II, § 95, and Kudeshkina, cited above, § 83) are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10. The absence of an effective judicial review of the impugned measure may also lead to the violation of Article 10 (see Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006, and Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-56, 20 October 2009). - EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 15966/06
Poyraz ./. Türkei
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 65411/01
SACILOR LORMINES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99
PITKEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03
MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95
PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 57592/08
HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
See my opinion in Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, 7 February 2013, and the opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque and Dedov in Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016. - EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09
KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
As Article 6 of the Convention does not, in our view, apply, Article 14 of the Convention cannot be invoked either (see Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, Haas v. the Netherlands, no. 36983/97, § 45, ECHR 2004-I, and Baka v. Hungary, no. 20261/12, § 117, 27 May 2014).