Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEFAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 29419/95

  They rely on the case of Van Marle v. Netherlands (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101), where a majority of the Court held that Article 6 was not applicable to a dispute concerning individuals' registration as certified accountants.

  The Commission considers that the present case is distinguishable from the case of Van Marle and Others v. Netherlands (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 12, para. 36).

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 29419/95

  1 (Art. 6-1) (see Eur. Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 20-22, paras. 44-50).
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 29419/95

  There is no indication in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that the mere fact that disciplinary proceedings against professional persons are determined by members of the profession amounts to a lack of "independence", even when the professional body concerned regulates a number of functions of the profession (as was the case in Eur. Court HR, H. v. Belgium judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B, p. 35, paras. 50, 51).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 29419/95

  Court HR, Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp.
• EGMR, 20.05.1998 - 21257/93

  GAUTRIN AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 29419/95

  It is true that problems of impartiality may arise if the members of the determining body have personally been involved in prosecuting the disciplinary proceedings at an earlier stage (see Gautrin and others v. France, Nos. 21257/93 to 21260/93, Comm. Report 26.11.96, pending before the European Court of Human Rights, where the Commission found a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6), and Eur.

• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 42509/05

  CROMPTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Convention organs followed the approach set out in Bryan to find that judicial review did provide "sufficiency of review" in a number of cases against the United Kingdom (for example, X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28530/95, Commission decision of 19 January 1998, concerning a determination by the Secretary of State that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be chief executive of an insurance company; Stefan v. the United Kingdom, no. 29419/95, Commission decision of 9 December 1997, concerning proceedings before the General Medical Council to establish whether or not the applicant was mentally ill and thus unfit to practise as a doctor; and Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Convention organs followed the approach set out in Bryan to find that there had been "sufficiency of review" in a number of cases against the United Kingdom (see, for example, X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28530/95, Commission decision of 19 January 1998, concerning a determination by the Secretary of State that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be chief executive of an insurance company; Stefan v. the United Kingdom, no. 29419/95, Commission decision of 9 December 1997, concerning proceedings before the General Medical Council ("GMC") to establish whether or not the applicant was mentally ill and thus unfit to practise as a doctor; Wickramsinghe v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31503/96, 9 December 1997, concerning disciplinary proceedings before the GMC; and see also Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV).