Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KREMERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention 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 (Eur. Court H.R., Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 46; Padovani judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 25).
• EKMR, 12.10.1988 - 11921/86

  KONTAKT-INFORMATION-THERAPIE AND HAGEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  It is also required that the applicant, either in form or in substance, has submitted to the competent domestic authorities the complaint brought before the Commission (cf. No. 11921/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 57, p. 81; No. 16810/90, Dec. 9.9.92, D.R. 73, p. 136).
• EKMR, 09.09.1992 - 16810/90

  REYNTJENS contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  It is also required that the applicant, either in form or in substance, has submitted to the competent domestic authorities the complaint brought before the Commission (cf. No. 11921/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 57, p. 81; No. 16810/90, Dec. 9.9.92, D.R. 73, p. 136).

 
• EGMR, 26.05.1988 - 10563/83

  EKBATANI v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5, No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention 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 (Eur. Court H.R., Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 46; Padovani judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 25).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  3 (d) (Art. 6-3-d) of the Convention, are to be regarded as witnesses - a term to be given its autonomous interpretation - because their statements gave relevant information to the Court of Appeal (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 25).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  1 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-3) taken together, since the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-3) represent constituent elements of the general concept of a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 (Art. 6-1) of this provision (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lala judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 12, para. 26).
• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5, No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5, No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).