Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COORPLAN-JENNI GMBH AND HASCIC v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine further complaint under Art. 6-1 Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 10523/02
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02

  The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19-20, § 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).

  Systematically holding hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in such cases (see mutatis mutandis Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 58).

• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96

  McELHINNEY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02

  It has been the Court's consistent case-law that Article 6 applies only to disputes over "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, amongst many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, Z and Others, at § 81 and the authorities cited therein together with McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).

  In these cases Article 6 was held applicable (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI and McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).

• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02

  The proceedings at issue were comparable to administrative proceedings concerning the approval of a transaction under the Real Property Transactions Act to which the Court had found that Article 6 was applicable (Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971 Series A no. 13, and Sramek v. Austria, judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A, no. 84), or to proceedings concerning a guardianship court's approval of a contract concerning a minor.
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96

  MENNITTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02

  Lastly, the right must be a "civil" right (see, amongst many other authorities, Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000-X, with further references).

• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 49616/06

  KOOTTUMMEL v. AUSTRIA

  Further relevant provisions of that act can be found in the judgments in the cases of Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria (no. 62539/00, 27 July 2007) and Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria (no. 10523/02, 27 July 2006).

  Referring to the judgments of the Court in the cases of Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria (no. 62539/00, 27 July 2007) and Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria (no. 10523/02, 27 July 2007), the applicant submitted that the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court had violated her right under Article 6 of the Convention.

  The Court cannot find that in the present case the subject matter of the proceedings before the Administrative Court was of such a nature, namely a highly technical issue or of mere legal nature, as to dispense with its obligation to hold a hearing (see Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria, no.62539/00, 27 July 2007, and Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, 27 July 2006).

• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 30097/03

  MUMLADZE v. GEORGIA

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify certain factual issues, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  GOGOLADZE v. GEORGIA

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify some purely technical issues and prove that she had had standing to challenge the authority of the respondent company's representative, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 2745/03

  RIZHAMADZE v. GEORGIA

  Legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented just as effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 25717/03

  OGANOVA v. GEORGIA

  It notes that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented just as effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).