Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZUMTOBEL c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 (französisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 15.10.1991 - 12235/86
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

Wird zitiert von ... (71)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  1 (art. 6-1) que s'il relève d""organes judiciaires de pleine juridiction" (arrêt Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique du 10 février 1983, série A no 58, p. 16, par. 29).

  1 (art. 6-1) (paragraphes 14 et 32 ci-dessus; voir, mutatis mutandis, les arrêts Le Compte, Van Leuven et De Meyere c. Belgique du 23 juin 1981, série A no 43, pp. 24-26, paras. 54-60; Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique précité, série A no 58, p. 19, par. 36; Belilos c. Suisse du 29 avril 1988, série A no 132, pp. 31-32, par. 72).

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  1 (art. 6-1) (paragraphes 14 et 32 ci-dessus; voir, mutatis mutandis, les arrêts Le Compte, Van Leuven et De Meyere c. Belgique du 23 juin 1981, série A no 43, pp. 24-26, paras. 54-60; Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique précité, série A no 58, p. 19, par. 36; Belilos c. Suisse du 29 avril 1988, série A no 132, pp. 31-32, par. 72).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  1 (art. 6-1) (paragraphes 14 et 32 ci-dessus; voir, mutatis mutandis, les arrêts Le Compte, Van Leuven et De Meyere c. Belgique du 23 juin 1981, série A no 43, pp. 24-26, paras. 54-60; Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique précité, série A no 58, p. 19, par. 36; Belilos c. Suisse du 29 avril 1988, série A no 132, pp. 31-32, par. 72).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  En l'absence de pareille demande du conseil de la Société Zumtobel, on doit considérer qu'elle y a renoncé sans équivoque; d'autre part, il n'apparaît pas que le litige soulevât des questions d'intérêt public rendant nécessaires des débats (voir en dernier lieu l'arrêt Schuler-Zgraggen c. Suisse du 24 juin 1993, série A no 263, pp. 19-20, par. 58).
• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  A cet égard, le présent litige se distingue de l'affaire Obermeier c. Autriche (arrêt du 28 juin 1990, série A no 179, p. 23, par. 70).

• EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

  1 (art. 6-1)" (Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 268-A).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  The Court would note that its conclusion concerning the applicability of Article 6 is without prejudice to the question of how the various guarantees of that Article (for example, the scope of review required of the national courts: see Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 32, Series A no. 268-A) should be applied in disputes concerning civil servants.
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  The Court agrees with the applicant and the Commission that the Austrian Constitutional Court does not have the requisite jurisdiction (see the Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 13, para. 30, and the Ortenberg judgment previously cited, p. 50, para. 32).

  In answering this question in the affirmative (paragraph 34 of its judgment), the Court has evidently followed its Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993 (Series A no. 268-A) and its Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994 (Series A no. 295-B) (see paragraph 32 of the judgment).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 12675/05

  GSELL c. SUISSE

  Dans cette hypothèse, le justiciable doit disposer d'un recours devant un organe judiciaire indépendant, doté de la plénitude de juridiction et offrant les garanties de l'article 6 § 1 (voir, notamment, les arrêts Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique, 10 février 1983, § 29, série A no 58, et Öztürk c. Allemagne, 21 février 1984, § 56, série A no 73) Cela dit, il importe, d'une manière générale, que soit exercé un contrôle complet de la légalité et que le juge national soit compétent pour les points de fait comme pour les questions de droit (Zumtobel c. Autriche, 21 septembre 1993, §§ 29-32, série A no 268-A, Fischer c. Autriche, 26 avril 1995, §§ 28-34, série A no 312, et Schweizer c. Suisse (déc.), no 61702, 10 juillet 2006).
• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 32181/04

  SIGMA RADIO TELEVISION LTD v. CYPRUS

  Both the Commission and the Court have acknowledged in their case-law that the requirement that a court or tribunal should have "full jurisdiction" will be satisfied where it is found that the judicial body in question has exercised "sufficient jurisdiction" or provided "sufficient review" in the proceedings before it (see, amongst many authorities, Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § §§ 31-32, Series A no. 268-A; Bryan, cited above, §§ 43-47; Müller and others v. Austria (dec.), no. 26507/95, 23 November 1999; and Crompton v. the United Kingdom, no. 42509/05, §§ 71 and 79, 27 October 2009).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.02.2011 - C-521/09

  Elf Aquitaine / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Kartelle - Europäischer Markt für …

  41 - Vgl. z. B. Urteile vom 31. August 2007, Bistovic/Kroatien, Nr. 53, betreffend die kroatischen "County Courts", vom 21. September 1993, Zumtobel/Österreich, Serie A, Bd. 268-A, Nrn. 27 bis 32, in Bezug auf die in jenem Fall vom österreichischen Verwaltungsgericht vorgenommene Nachprüfung, und vom 25. Oktober 1995, Bryan/Vereinigtes Königreich, Serie A, Bd. 335-A, Nrn. 44 bis 47. Diese Präzedenzfälle betreffen allerdings nicht das Strafrecht.
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96

  MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  The question therefore arises whether the applicant should be regarded as having waived his right to a hearing (see the Håkansson and Sturesson judgment, previously cited, pp. 20-21, § 67; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58; Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 14, § 34).
• EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 26591/95

  HOFER v. AUSTRIA

  The Commission notes that the Convention organs have held on several occasions that the scope of review of the Administrative Court is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) in an initial determination of civil rights and obligations (Eur. Court HR, Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B and Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312), and sees no reason in the present case to conclude that the proceedings which ended with the Administrative Court's decision of 13 February 1992 were in any way capable of denying the applicant his right to a court in the initial determination.

  The Commission again notes that the Convention organs have held on several occasions that the scope of review of the Administrative Court is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) in an initial determination of civil rights and obligations (Eur. Court HR, Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B and Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312), and sees no reason in the present case to conclude that the scope of review before the Administrative Court was in any way capable of denying the applicant his right to a court in the initial determination.

• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 20619/92

  BIRNLEITNER v. AUSTRIA

  However, she has not shown that she could not raise these complaints before the Administrative Court, in particular that she could not put forward any evidence which she regarded as pertinent (see Comm. Report 30.6.92, Zumtobel v. Austria, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 268-A, p. 22, para. 87).

  An important indication will be whether the court itself in the circumstances of the case considered that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the complaints raised (see Eur. Court H.R., Zumtobel judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 14, para. 32; Ortenberg judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, para. 34).

• EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 26507/95

  MÜLLER, FEICHTER, FRÖHLICH, BECHTOLD, BÖCKLE AND KÜHNE v. AUSTRIA

  Moreover, such a procedural rule did not infringe Article 6 of the Convention as the European Court of Human Rights had stated in its Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 12 September 1993 (Series A no. 268-A).

  In its previous case- law the Court has accepted that disputes concerning such matters involve a determination of an applicant's civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see the Bodén v. Sweden judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-B, pp. 39-41, §§ 28-32, and the Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 12 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 13-14, §§ 31-32).

• EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 21491/93

  BELEGGINGS- EN BEEHEERSMAATSCHAPPIJ INDIANA V.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 19178/91

  BRYAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10

  FAZIA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09

  JURICIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.11.1997 - 21835/93

  WERNER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 31930/04

  SARA LIND EGGERTSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 72034/01

  DRUZSTEVNÍ ZÁLOZNA PRIA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 43800/12

  TSANOVA-GECHEVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 28827/11

  ANDREASEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND 26 OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 10781/08

  OHNEBERG v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 21539/07

  STEININGER v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 16717/90

  PAUGER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14

  BIAGIOLI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  GALINA KOSTOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 21565/07

  JULIUS KLOIBER SCHLACHTHOF GMBH AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 10212/07

  DURAND c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 34983/02

  NOWICKY v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 07.04.1994 - 18051/91

  HUG-VONWALD v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 26524/04

  DIMITAR KRASTEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 9143/08

  SIKIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06

  GABRIEL v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  K.T. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  ALATULKKILA AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 48962/99

  EXEL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 32636/96

  A.T. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74242/01

  TANYAR ET KÜÇÜKERGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 26890/95

  KUKKOLA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 54640/00

  SYLVESTER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 58468/00

  KIENDLER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 61595/00

  CETINKAYA v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 33776/96

  POTOCKA ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE
• EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 31503/96

  WICKRAMSINGHE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 27741/95

  C.B. v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 03.12.1996 - 23749/94

  BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 12.01.1994 - 18874/91

  X. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 47052/18

  GOLOVIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.12.2004 - 48309/99

  KILIÁN c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 18.04.2002 - 63219/00

  LIELPETERIS contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 28338/95

  BLOM v. SWEDEN
• EKMR, 11.09.1997 - 27894/95

  BÄCKSTRÖM v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28866/95

  FEHR, MÄHNER, KESSLER AND BAHTIM GASTSTÄTTEN GESMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 10.04.1997 - 28569/95

  U.D. v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 10.09.1996 - 22475/93

  KRISTAVCNIK-REUTTERER v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 22474/93

  HERZ-JESU KLOSTER SACRÉ COEUR RIEDENBURG v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 28502/95

  R.C. v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 11.04.1996 - 25907/94

  SJÖBERG-THÖRN v. SWEDEN
• EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 26527/95

  BLUM and JACOBI v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 23777/94

  LORETZ v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 30.11.1994 - 19798/92

  AUGUSTIN S.A. v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 18822/91

  A.H. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 1550/09

  HEATHER MOOR & EDGECOMB LTD. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 54640/00

  SYLVESTER v. AUSTRIA (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 45289/99

  BRUNNTHALER v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 18778/91

  S. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 33957/96

  T.B. contre la SUISSE
• EKMR, 19.01.1998 - 28530/95

  X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 14.10.1994 - 19630/92

  A.K. v. AUSTRIA