Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALI RIZA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ALI RIZA v. TURKEY

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

Papierfundstellen

• SpuRt 2020, 180

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  According to the Court's settled case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, among other authorities, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, and Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  The procedure before it must ensure the "determination of the matters in dispute" as required by Article 6 § 1 (see Benthem v. the Netherlands, 23 October 1985, § 40, Series A no. 97).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-I).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  I argue that such a position is contrary to a number of judgments of this Court, notably with those in Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia (no. 47072/15, §§ 66 and 67, 23 October 2018), Pélissier and Sassi v. France 5 5(GC), no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II), Destrehem v. France (no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004), and Miessen v. Belgium (no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 56651/00

  DESTREHEM c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  I argue that such a position is contrary to a number of judgments of this Court, notably with those in Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia (no. 47072/15, §§ 66 and 67, 23 October 2018), Pélissier and Sassi v. France 5 5(GC), no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II), Destrehem v. France (no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004), and Miessen v. Belgium (no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  According to the Court's settled case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, among other authorities, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, and Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 51160/06

  DI GIOVANNI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  In addition, only an institution that has full jurisdiction and satisfies a number of requirements, such as independence from the executive and also from the parties, merits the designation "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, § 38, Series A no. 296-B, and Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, § 52, 9 July 2013).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15

  PRODUKCIJA PLUS STORITVENO PODJETJE D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  I argue that such a position is contrary to a number of judgments of this Court, notably with those in Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia (no. 47072/15, §§ 66 and 67, 23 October 2018), Pélissier and Sassi v. France 5 5(GC), no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II), Destrehem v. France (no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004), and Miessen v. Belgium (no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  In addition, only an institution that has full jurisdiction and satisfies a number of requirements, such as independence from the executive and also from the parties, merits the designation "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, § 38, Series A no. 296-B, and Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, § 52, 9 July 2013).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  The Court further reiterates that its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature and that, in general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no 71503/01, §§ 201-203, ECHR 2004-II, and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 1742/05

  EIFFAGE S.A. ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• BGH, 04.11.2021 - I ZB 54/20

  Verbandsrechtliche Haftung der Fußballvereine für das Verhalten ihrer Anhänger

  Eine Schiedsrichterliste an sich ist solange nicht zu beanstanden, als hierdurch nicht ein Übergewicht einer Partei institutionalisiert wird (…vgl. Zöller/Geimer, ZPO, 33. Aufl., § 1034 Rn. 11) oder das Gremium, das einen maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die Erstellung der Schiedsrichterliste hat, einer der Parteien nähersteht als der anderen, also gleichsam einem bestimmten "Lager" zuzurechnen ist (…vgl. BGHZ 210, 292 Rn. 30; EGMR…, Urteil vom 2. Oktober 2018 - 40575/10, BeckRS 2018, 23523 Rn. 157 - Mutu u. Pechstein/Schweiz; EGMR, SpuRt 2020, 180 Rn. 217 und 219 - Ali Riza u.a./Türkei).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 74989/11

  ALI RIZA c. SUISSE

  Dans son arrêt du 28 janvier 2020 (Ali Riza et autres c. Turquie, nos 30226/10 et 4 autres, 28 janvier 2020), la Cour considéra tout d'abord qu'à l'époque des faits, le Comité d'arbitrage disposait d'une compétence exclusive et obligatoire sur le litige du requérant.

  Ainsi, ce sont des droits « à caractère civil'au sens de l'article 6 de la Convention (voir, en ce sens, Mutu et Pechstein, précité, § 57, et Ali Riza et autres c. Turquie, nos 30226/10 et 4 autres, § 159, 28 janvier 2020).

  Toutefois, un tel parallélisme est déplacé compte tenu des différences significatives qui existaient entre les régimes applicables en l'espèce en Suisse et en Turquie en matière d'arbitrage, la différence la plus notable étant que contrairement au régime suisse, à l'égard duquel aucune allégation de cette nature n'a été formulée, le régime turc s'apparentait à une forme d'arbitrage forcé (Ali Riza et autres c. Turquie, no 30226/10, 28 janvier 2020, §§ 142, 174 et 181).

  Il était donc tout à fait naturel que, dans son arrêt du 28 janvier 2020, 1a Cour ait examiné les griefs que le requérant avait dirigés contre la Turquie au sujet de la procédure suivie en Turquie (Ali Riza et autres c. Turquie, nos 30226/10 et 4 autres, § 181, 28 janvier 2020).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA

  30226/10 and 4 others, § 142, 28 January 2020).

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  30226/10 and 4 others, § 142, 28 January 2020).
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18

  PISKIN v. TURKEY

  I explained in my separate opinion in the case of Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4 others) how the doctrine of the loss of real opportunities had been reflected in a number of judgments rendered by the Court, notably in Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, no. 47072/15, paragraphs 66 and 67, 23. October 2018, Pelisser and Sassi v. France (GC), no. 25444/94, paragraph 80, ECHR 1999-II, Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, paragraph 52, 18 May 2004, and Miessen v. Belgium, no. 31517/12, paragraph 78, 18 October 2016.
• EGMR - 59957/21 (anhängig)

  GALATASARAY SPORTIF SiNAI VE TICARI YATIRIMLAR ANONIM ?žIRKETI v. TÜRKIYE

  Relying on the findings of the Court in the case of Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 201-223, 28 January 2020), the applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their dispute was not decided by an independent and impartial tribunal.

  Did the proceedings in issue satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 194-223, 28 January 2020)?.

• EGMR - 8131/22 (anhängig)

  GALATASARAY SPORTIF SiNAI VE TICARI YATiRiMLAR ANONIM ?žIRKETI AND ÇAGLAYAN v. …

  Relying on the findings of the Court in the case of Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 201-223, 28 January 2020), the applicants complain about the Arbitration Committee's decision of 3 August 2021 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that their dispute was not decided by an independent and impartial tribunal.

  Did the proceedings in issue satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 194-223, 28 January 2020)?.

• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  BILGEN v. TURKEY

  Thus, having regard to the nature of the violation found in the present case and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 12, 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable (see, mutatis mutandis, Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, § 249, 28 January 2020).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 62318/09

  SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME AHMET NIHAT ÖZSAN c. TURQUIE

  J'ai voté contre le point 4 du dispositif de cet arrêt pour les mêmes raisons que celles que j'ai exposées dans mes opinions séparées antérieures, notamment dans l'affaire Ali Riza et autres c. Turquie (nos 30226/10 et 4 autres, 28 janvier 2020).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  IBRAHIM TOKMAK c. TURQUIE

  Pour un résumé détaillé du droit interne et international pertinent en l'espèce, voir Ali Riza et autres c. Turquie (nos 30226/10 et 4 autres, §§ 45-141, 28 janvier 2020).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 48909/14

  SEDAT DOGAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 44616/22 (anhängig)

  UÇANKAN c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 22421/16 (anhängig)

  ÇEKER v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 9570/23 (anhängig)

  ALTINER AKINCI v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 23990/23 (anhängig)

  BILECIK AND FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONIM ?žIRKETI v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 32123/19 (anhängig)

  MARDAR v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 48924/16

  NAKI ET AMED SPORTIF FAALIYETLER KULÜBÜ DERNEGI c. TURQUIE