Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FELLER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 67950/01

  ROZSA v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 17169/06

  Further, having regard to its case-law on tribunals within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, (see for instance, Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, §§ 34-37, relating to land reform boards, Rozsa v. Austria (dec.), no. 67950/01, 6 April 2004, concerning trial and appeal boards for tax offences, and Stojakovic v. Austria, no. 30003/02, §§ 46-50, 9 November 2006, relating to the Appeals Commission under the Civil Servants Act), the Court considers that the Vienna Public Service Appeals Board has to be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. In this respect the Court observes that the Board determining matters within its competence on the basis of the rule of law and after proceedings conducted in a prescribed manner should decide in three-member panels: a judge as a chairman, a legally trained civil servant from the complainant's department as the representative of the employer and a further civil servant, that its members are appointed for a five-year term and are not bound by any instruction in the exercise of their functions.
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 31820/04

  RIESS-PASSER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 17169/06

  In view of the Court's case-law on that matter, neither the argument that the Vienna Public Service Appeals Board has discretion whether to hold a hearing nor that it does not normally hold one, can dispense the applicant from making an explicit request for an oral hearing (see Riess-Passer v. Austria (dec.), no. 31820/04, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 49453/99

  KAIPILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 17169/06

  Relying on the case of Kaipila v. Finland (Decision, no. 49453/99, 18 October 2005), the Government argued that also in the present case the decision to be taken by the authority had to rely to a large extent on the expert opinion of medical doctors and therefore was better determined in writing.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 37051/05

  BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA

  Moreover, the Court observes that the wording of the applicant's complaint relating to the alleged "superficial nature" of the judicial examination of her employment action cannot be said to concern an important question of principle, which might justify examining the present application on the merits (see also, on similar employment disputes with local authorities, and among many other examples, Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010; and Feller v. Austria (dec.), no. 17169/06, 4 February 2010).