Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WIEDEMANN v. GERMANY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 22648/93

  It is further pointed out that the situation in question was to be distinguished from the Hauschildt v. Denmark case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154) because in that case a judge had been considered no longer to qualify as an impartial trial judge on account of his pre-trial activities in the investigation phase.

  1 (Art. 6-1) must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (cf. Eur. Court HR, De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, paras. 25, 26; Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 46; Thomann v. Switzerland judgment of 10 June 1996, para. 30, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996).

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 22648/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) (cf. Eur. Court HR, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 32, para. 88).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 22648/93

  The Court observed that "no ground for legitimate suspicion can be discerned in the fact that" judges who "had taken part in the first decision" also participate in the second (cf. Eur. Court HR, Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, para. 97; Diennet judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 16-17, paras. 37-38; Thomann judgment, op. cit., para. 33).

 
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 22648/93

  This rule manifests the national legislator's concern to remove doubts as to the impartiality of the court dealing with a case in a second set of proceedings (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 50, para. 50).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 22648/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (cf. Eur. Court HR, De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, paras. 25, 26; Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 46; Thomann v. Switzerland judgment of 10 June 1996, para. 30, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 22648/93

  The Court observed that "no ground for legitimate suspicion can be discerned in the fact that" judges who "had taken part in the first decision" also participate in the second (cf. Eur. Court HR, Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, para. 97; Diennet judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 16-17, paras. 37-38; Thomann judgment, op. cit., para. 33).
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

  NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 22648/93

  What is decisive is whether his fear can be regarded as objectively justified (cf. Hauschildt judgment, op. cit., para. 48; Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, para. 33).