Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PFEIFER AND PLANKL v. AUSTRIA
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Violation de l'Art. 8 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ... - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 15.12.1988 - 10802/84
- EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
- EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 1992, 1873
Wird zitiert von ... (49) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85
Oberschlick ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
Its non-observance means that Mr Pfeifer was tried by a court whose impartiality was recognised by national law itself to be open to doubt (see, mutatis mutandis, the Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 23, para. 50).According to the Court's case-law, the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - insofar as it is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, as the most recent authority, the Oberschlick judgment cited above, Series A no. 204, p. 23, para. 51).
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
In the case of Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, the Court held that it was not "necessary in a democratic society" to stop private letters "calculated to hold the authorities up to contempt" or containing "material deliberately calculated to hold the prison authorities up to contempt" (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 26 and 38, paras. 64 and 99 (c)). - EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
In this respect, it is unnecessary to define the precise role played by the judges in question during the investigative stage (see, mutatis mutandis, the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, para. 31). - EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
With reference to its jurisdiction to consider the objection, the Court refers to its well-established case-law (as first stated in the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 14, pp. 27-30, paras. 44-52); for the reasons given in the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991 (Series A no. 222, p. 19, para. 39), it does not consider it should depart therefrom. - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
The Commission asked the Court to declare the objection inadmissible and referred to the dissenting opinions in certain recent cases (see, inter alia, the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, pp. 22-24, opinions of Judges Martens and Morenilla).
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …
The Court reiterates that waiver of the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Convention must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, mutatis mutandis , Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 37). - EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
La jurisprudence de la Cour exige néanmoins que la renonciation à un droit garanti par la Convention - pour autant qu'elle soit licite - se trouve établie de manière non équivoque, qu'elle ait lieu en connaissance de cause, c'est-à-dire sur la base d'un consentement éclairé (Pfeifer et Plankl c. Autriche, 25 février 1992, §§ 37-38, série A no 227) et qu'elle soit effectuée sans contrainte (Deweer c. Belgique, 27 février 1980, § 51, série A no 35). - EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90
BULUT v. AUSTRIA
Contrary to what occurred in the case of Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria (judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, paras. 35-39), in which the Court took the view that the waiver was invalid, the offer of waiver in the present case, as the record of the trial shows, was accepted by experienced legal counsel in an unequivocal manner.However, if the Chamber is of the opinion that the right in issue is one which the accused may waive (as, in a comparable situation, the Court held in substance in the case of Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, para. 37) and that in the instant case there was indeed a waiver of this right, in circumstances attended by the necessary safeguards, all those parts of the reasoning which go to prove in the instant case that impartiality was not in question either subjectively or objectively speaking seem to me to be unnecessary, even though they are in principle relevant.
In the Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria case (judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, paras. 35-39) the Court, without explanation, left this question open, however.
[12] Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp.
- EGMR, 12.03.2003 - 46221/99
Freiheit der Person (rechtmäßige Freiheitsentziehung; effektives …
It is recalled that a waiver - in so far as such a waiver is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner ( Pfeifer and Plankl v Austria , 22 April 1998, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 37).The Court reiterates that waiver of the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Convention must be established in an unequivocal manner ( mutatis mutandis , Pfeifer and Plankl v Austria, cited above, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 37).
- EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
It is open to question whether this latter requirement applies when the accused has waived his right to appear and to defend himself, but at all events such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (see the Pfeiffer and Plankl v. Austria judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, para. 37). - EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03
ORSUS ET AUTRES c. CROATIE
However, under the Court's case-law, the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - in so far as such a waiver is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner, and be given in full knowledge of the facts, that is to say on the basis of informed consent (Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, §§ 37-38) and without constraint (Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 51). - EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 41069/12
TABBANE c. SUISSE
De plus, pour entrer en ligne de compte sous l'angle de la Convention, la renonciation à certains droits garantis par la Convention doit s'entourer d'un minimum de garanties correspondant à sa gravité (Pfeifer et Plankl c. Autriche, 25 février 1992, § 37, série A no 227). - EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31737/96
SUOVANIEMI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
According to the Convention organs' established case-law, the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - insofar as it is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, Eur. Court HR, Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 23, § 51, and Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 37). - EGMR, 05.06.2008 - 32526/05
SAMPANIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
La jurisprudence de la Cour exige toutefois que la renonciation à un droit garanti par la Convention - pour autant qu'elle soit licite - se trouve établie de manière non équivoque, qu'elle ait eu lieu en connaissance de cause, c'est-à-dire sur la base d'un consentement éclairé (Pfeifer et Plankl c. Autriche, arrêt du 25 février 1992, série A no 227, pp.16-17, §§ 37-38), et sans contrainte (Deweer c. Belgique, arrêt du 27 février 1980, série A no 35, § 51). - EuG, 27.11.2018 - T-314/16
VG/ Kommission
Der Ruf einer Person ist Bestandteil ihrer persönlichen und moralischen Integrität, die beide Teile ihrer Privatsphäre sind (EGMR, 25. Februar 1992, Pfeifer und Plankl/Österreich, CE:ECHR:1992:0225JUD001080284, Nr. 35). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.09.2002 - C-196/99
Aristrain / Kommission
- EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94
Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …
- EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 45558/15
MARICÁK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29090/06
Vereinbarkeit einer Verfahrensdauer von fast 4 Jahren bei Durchlaufen von 3 …
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 64962/01
OZEROV v. RUSSIA
- OLG Hamm, 28.05.2019 - 5 Ws 217/19
Beschränkungen in der Untersuchungshaft; Besuchsüberwachung; Überwachung des …
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19
HALIT KARA v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15
SIGURÐUR EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 1742/05
EIFFAGE S.A. ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03
MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37537/13
BORG v. MALTA
- OLG Hamm, 06.12.2022 - 2 Ws 215/22
- EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 32432/96
TALAT TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 35943/02
TRANSADO-TRANSPORTES FLUVIAIS DO SADO, S.A., c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 5856/13
RAMLJAK v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 59624/00
K.-E. Z. L. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 15.07.2005 - 71615/01
MEZNARIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07
DAVIDSONS AND SAVINS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 25381/02
SEYITHAN DEMIR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.04.2023 - 35673/18
MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 3)
- EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 74536/10
SINAN ÇETINKAYA AND AGYAR ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 29752/04
THIND v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 8917/05
KART c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 33089/02
ROMANOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 50812/06
ALMEIDA SANTOS c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 61697/00
MELONI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
BLAKE c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 54483/00
LOGICA - MOVEIS DE ORGANIZACAO, LDA, contre le PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 22.04.1998 - 33441/96
RICHARD c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.04.1998 - 32217/96
PAILOT v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 11122/10
DE BAETS c. MONACO
- EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 61697/00
MELONI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 42388/98
S.I. CHISSIEZ BON ATTRAIT contre la SUISSE
- EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 26352/95
G.G. v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 20837/92
M.S. v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 02.10.1989 - 12725/87
M. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
- EGMR, 27.01.2000 - 43694/98
DONNELLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 31.08.1994 - 22634/93
MLYNEK v. AUSTRIA
Rechtsprechung
EKMR, 15.12.1988 - 10802/84 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
P. AND P. v. AUSTRIA
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 15.12.1988 - 10802/84
- EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
- EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.12.1988 - 10802/84
The measure complained of did not consist in the stopping of the letter as in all other cases relative to an infringement of correspondence that have been dealt with by the Convention organs (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Silver and others judgment of 5 March 1983, Series A no. 61).
Rechtsprechung
EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 15.12.1988 - 10802/84
- EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
- EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
As regards the participation of two judges in the first applicant's trial who had earlier acted as investigating judges, the Commission recalls that such participation may raise an issue concerning the impartiality of the court (cf. in particular Eur. Court H.R., De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86; No. 9976/82, Ben Yaacoub v. Belgium, Comm. Report 7.5.86; and e contrario, No. 10486/83, Hauschildt v. Denmark, Comm. Report 16.7.87).Having regard to the Court's De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 86), it finds that these complaints raise complex issues of fact and law regarding the application of Article 6 para.
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
In this respect the Commission recalls that a person may validly waive invoking the guarantees under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (cf. No. 1197/61, Dec. 5.3.62, Collection 8 pp. 68, 73; No. 6903/75, Deweer v. Belgium, Comm. Report 5.10.78, paras. 55 et seq., confirmed by Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 25, paras. 49 et seq.; No. 9177/80, Dec. 6.10.81., D.R. 26 pp. 255, 258). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
Having regard to the Court's Silver and Others judgment of 25 March 1983 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 61) it finds that these complaints raise complex issues of fact and law regarding the application of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which require a determination on the merits.
- EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
As regards the participation of two judges in the first applicant's trial who had earlier acted as investigating judges, the Commission recalls that such participation may raise an issue concerning the impartiality of the court (cf. in particular Eur. Court H.R., De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86; No. 9976/82, Ben Yaacoub v. Belgium, Comm. Report 7.5.86; and e contrario, No. 10486/83, Hauschildt v. Denmark, Comm. Report 16.7.87). - EKMR, 05.03.1962 - 1197/61
X. contre la REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
In this respect the Commission recalls that a person may validly waive invoking the guarantees under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (cf. No. 1197/61, Dec. 5.3.62, Collection 8 pp. 68, 73; No. 6903/75, Deweer v. Belgium, Comm. Report 5.10.78, paras. 55 et seq., confirmed by Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 25, paras. 49 et seq.; No. 9177/80, Dec. 6.10.81., D.R. 26 pp. 255, 258). - EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 7987/77
COMPANY X. v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222/236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45). - EKMR, 08.02.1973 - 5258/71
X. v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222/236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45). - EGMR, 27.11.1987 - 9976/82
BEN YAACOUB v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
As regards the participation of two judges in the first applicant's trial who had earlier acted as investigating judges, the Commission recalls that such participation may raise an issue concerning the impartiality of the court (cf. in particular Eur. Court H.R., De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86; No. 9976/82, Ben Yaacoub v. Belgium, Comm. Report 7.5.86; and e contrario, No. 10486/83, Hauschildt v. Denmark, Comm. Report 16.7.87). - EKMR, 06.10.1981 - 9177/80
X. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
In this respect the Commission recalls that a person may validly waive invoking the guarantees under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (cf. No. 1197/61, Dec. 5.3.62, Collection 8 pp. 68, 73; No. 6903/75, Deweer v. Belgium, Comm. Report 5.10.78, paras. 55 et seq., confirmed by Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 25, paras. 49 et seq.; No. 9177/80, Dec. 6.10.81., D.R. 26 pp. 255, 258).