Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRINCAT c. ITALIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 5-3 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 13.07.1990 - 13867/88
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

  MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  4 (art. 3, art. 5-4), but the latter two complaints are outside the scope of the case as defined by the Commission's decision on admissibility (see among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 24, para. 70).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  The Government, however, invited the Court to return to the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979 (Series A no. 34, p. 15, para. 34), which showed that only the effective concurrent exercise of such functions, as opposed to the mere abstract possibility thereof, was such as to infringe Article 5 para.
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  According to the Court's case-law, a judicial officer who is competent to decide on detention may also carry out other duties, but there is a risk that his impartiality may arouse legitimate doubt on the part of those subject to his decisions if he is entitled to intervene in the subsequent proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, para. 43).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 33060/10

  Vertretungsverbot gegen einen Anwalt ohne vorherige Durchführung einer mündlichen …

  Referring to its case-law, the Court finds that no award can be made with respect to the claim for cost and expenses in this case (see Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, § 77-78, Series A no. 209; Brincat v. Italy, 26 November 1992, § 29, Series A no. 249-A; and Malek v. Austria, no. 60553/00, § 55, 12 June 2003).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 73797/01
  Rn. 126 In considering this question, the Court recalls that, both in relation to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in the context of Article 5 § 3, it has found doubts as to whether impartiality can be objectively justified where there is some confusion between the functions of prosecutor and judge (see, with regard to Article 6 § 1, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 35-38, ECHR 2000-X, and, regarding Article 5 § 3, Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp.
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  The De Cubber doctrine may be compared with that enunciated in the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, where the Court laid down the rule that membership of the prosecution disqualifies a person from being a trial judge (compare the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 11, para. 20).

• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  A cet égard, les apparences objectives à l'époque de la décision sur la détention sont pertinentes: s'il apparaît à ce stade que le magistrat peut intervenir dans la procédure pénale ultérieure en qualité de partie poursuivante, son indépendance et son impartialité peuvent paraître sujettes à caution (Huber c. Suisse, arrêt du 23 octobre 1990, série A no 188, p. 18, § 43, et Brincat c. Italie, arrêt du 26 novembre 1992, série A no 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
• EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 27540/95

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A,.

  Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A).

• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 64962/01

  OZEROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that, in relation to Article 6 § 1 and in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, it has found doubts as to impartiality to be objectively justified where there is some confusion between the functions of prosecutor and judge (see, with regard to Article 6 § 1, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 4 2095/98, §§ 35-38, ECHR 2000-X, and, regarding Article 5 § 3, Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp. 11-12, §§ 20-22; Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, pp. 17-18, §§ 41-43 ; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3298-99, §§ 146-50).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 39731/98

  PETUR THOR SIGURÐSSON v. ICELAND

  26-27, §§ 77-78, and Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 13, § 29).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99

  DORAN v. IRELAND

  The Court finds that the sum claimed in respect of the actual expenses incurred by the applicants in pursuing their Convention complaint (EUR 1, 000) is recoverable and appears reasonable, but that the sum claimed in respect of time spent drafting submissions to the Court cannot be taken into consideration, as the applicants presented their own case (Brincat v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, § 29).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Selon la Cour, ce dernier grief sort toutefois du cadre de l'affaire tel que l'a délimité la décision de la Commission sur la recevabilité (voir notamment, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt Brincat c. Italie du 26 novembre 1992, série A n° 249-A, p. 10, par. 16).
• EGMR, 26.05.2016 - 56666/12

  SLAKU v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  In view of this and the fact that the applicant was granted leave for self-representation, the Court considers that there is no ground to make an award under this head (see Brincat v. Italy, 26 November 1992, § 29, Series A no. 249-A, and Stamoulakatos v. Greece (no. 2), 26 November 1997, § 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII).
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 42224/02

  KRIVOSHAPKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 47473/99

  HELLBORG v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 53760/00

  B.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 39105/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 36945/97

  CASTANHEIRA BARROS c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 06.10.1998 - 27540/95

  BRINCAT c. ITALIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 52367/99

  MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 60553/00

  MALEK v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2003 - 62274/00

  JARLAN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 19133/91
• EGMR, 26.11.1997 - 27159/95

  STAMOULAKATOS c. GRÈCE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 36833/97

  H.G. v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 20918/92

  M.H. v. SWITZERLAND