Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMLJAK v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RAMLJAK v. CROATIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5856/13

  In proceedings originating in an individual application the Court has to confine itself, as far as possible, to an examination of the concrete case before it (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 41, ECHR 2000-XII).

  Nor had he at any point during the proceedings represented the applicant's opponent as a lawyer (see, a contrario, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 47, ECHR 2000-XII, and Meznaric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, § 34-37, 15 July 2005).

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 65411/01

  SACILOR LORMINES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5856/13

  Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the applicant and M.R., which was a dispute over a will, there is nothing to suggest that Judge D.P. had a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the proceedings (see, a contrario, Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, § 45, ECHR 2003-IV; Pescador Valero v. Spain, no. 62435/00, § 27, ECHR 2003-VII; Sacilor-Lormines v. France, no. 65411/01, §§ 64-70, ECHR 2006-XIII; Tocono and Profesorii Prometeisti v. Moldova, no. 32263/03, § 31, 26 June 2007; UTE Saur Vallnet v. Andorra, no. 16047/10, §§ 52-58, 29 May 2012; and Mitrov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 45959/09, § 55, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5856/13

  The Court's task is to determine whether the Contracting States have achieved the result called for by the Convention, not to indicate the particular means to be utilised (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 35, Series A no. 86; and compare to Dorozhko and Pozhaskiy, cited above, § 53).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5856/13

  35485/05 and 3 others, § 168, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5856/13

  Therefore, the practice of the Supreme Court, to the extent that there may be any inconsistency, does not amount to a situation where a failure to comply with domestic requirements is sufficient to call into question the impartiality of a judge (see, for example, Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, § 36, Series A no. 227; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 50, Series A no. 204; and Meznaric, cited above, § 27).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5856/13

  Therefore, the practice of the Supreme Court, to the extent that there may be any inconsistency, does not amount to a situation where a failure to comply with domestic requirements is sufficient to call into question the impartiality of a judge (see, for example, Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, § 36, Series A no. 227; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 50, Series A no. 204; and Meznaric, cited above, § 27).

• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 8402/17

  MALIC v. CROATIA

  Relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in Ramljak v. Croatia (no. 5856/13, §§ 13-21, 27 June 2017).

  While an automatic disqualification of all judges at national level who have personal ties with the employees of the parties in given proceedings was not always called for (compare Dorozhko and Pozhaskiy v. Estonia, nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, § 53, 24 April 2008), the nature of those personal links is of importance when determining whether the applicant's fears were objectively justified (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 102, ECHR 2009; Mitrov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 45959/09, § 54, 2 June 2016; and Ramljak v. Croatia, no. 5856/13, 27 June 2017).

• EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 46530/09

  URGESI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle, enfin, qu'une juridiction supérieure ou suprême peut bien entendu, dans certains cas, redresser les défauts de la procédure (voir Ramljak c. Croatie, no 5856/13, § 40, 27 juin 2017, et Kyprianou, précité, § 134).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 63246/10

  NICHOLAS v. CYPRUS

  As regards the second ground invoked by the applicant (see paragraph 57 above), the Court finds that when a judge has blood ties with an employee of a law firm representing a party in any given proceedings, this does not in and of itself disqualify the judge (see Ramljak v. Croatia, no. 5856/13, § 29, 27 June 2017).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 45202/14

  KOLESNIKOVA c. RUSSIE

  Pour ce qui est de l'appréciation objective, elle consiste à se demander si, indépendamment de la conduite personnelle du juge, certains faits vérifiables autorisent à suspecter l'impartialité de ce dernier (voir, à titre d'exemple, Ramljak c. Croatie, no 5856/13, §§ 27-42, 27 juin 2017, et Mitrov c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 45959/09, §§ 49-52, 2 juin 2016).
• LSG Baden-Württemberg, 26.11.2014 - L 11 KR 4179/14
  Die hiergegen von der Antragstellerin erhobene Klage ist beim SG unter dem Az S 5 KR 5856/13 anhängig.
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 24315/13

  TABAK v. CROATIA

  The remaining relevant domestic law provisions concerning the disqualification of judges in civil proceedings is set out in the case of Ramljak v. Croatia (no. 5856/13, §§ 13-18, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 39234/08

  FILYUTKIN c. RUSSIE

  Pour ce qui est de l'appréciation objective, elle consiste à se demander si, indépendamment de la conduite personnelle du juge, certains faits vérifiables autorisent à suspecter l'impartialité de ce dernier (voir, à titre d'exemple, Ramljak c. Croatie, no 5856/13, §§ 27-42, 27 juin 2017, Mitrov c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 45959/09, §§ 49-50, 2 juin 2016, et Kristiansen c. Norvège, no 1176/10, §§ 52-61, 17 décembre 2015).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 19922/16

  MILAS v. CROATIA

  4184/15 et al., §§ 25-27, 3 November 2015, and contrast Ramljak v. Croatia, no. 5856/13, §§ 31, 35, and 37, 27 June 2017, and Malic v. Croatia (Committee), no. 8402/17, §§ 19 and 22, 22 April 2021).