Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BULUT c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 57 MRK
  Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 (tribunal établi par la loi impartialité procès public) Violation de l'Art. 6-1 (égalité des armes) Dommage - demande rejetée Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BULUT v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 57 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (tribunal established by law impartiality hearing) Violation of Art. 6-1 (equality of arms) Damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 02.04.1993 - 17358/90
• EKMR, 08.09.1994 - 17358/90
• EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  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, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  However, whether these misgivings should be treated as objectively justified depends on the circumstances of each particular case; the mere fact that a trial judge has also dealt with the case at the pre-trial stage cannot be held as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see, mutatis mutandis, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, pp. 21-22, paras. 49-50, and the Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, para. 33).

  The clarity and the very tone of this doctrine - which has led to changes in legislation and in the judicial system in States parties to the Convention, such as Spain - have been attenuated, however, by later judgments of the Court, beginning with the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989 (Series A no. 154).

  [14] Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, paras.

• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  1 (art. 6-1) is being determined, regard must be had not only to the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case - the subjective approach - but also whether he afforded sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect - the objective approach (see, among many other authorities, the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 14, para. 30).

  2 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (paragraph 18) required that Judge Schaumburger withdraw of his own motion in accordance with our Court's case-law (see the following judgments: Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, para. 30; De Cubber, previously cited, p. 14, para. 26; and Hauschildt, previously cited, p. 21, para. 48): "... any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw.

  [7] Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 6, paras.

 
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  In the De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984 (Series A no. 86, pp. 15-16) the Court explained at length the reasons why investigation functions are incompatible with those of trying a case where, "through the various means of inquiry which he will have utilised at the investigation stage," a judge, "unlike his colleagues, [has] already... acquired well before the hearing a particularly detailed knowledge of the - sometimes voluminous - file or files which he has assembled.

  [8] De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 8, paras.

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  In my dissenting opinion in the Diennet v. France case (judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A) I criticised this approach of the Court's to the problem of a tribunal's impartiality on account of the uncertainty it entailed.

  [23] Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 8, paras.

• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

  NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  However, whether these misgivings should be treated as objectively justified depends on the circumstances of each particular case; the mere fact that a trial judge has also dealt with the case at the pre-trial stage cannot be held as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see, mutatis mutandis, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, pp. 21-22, paras. 49-50, and the Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, para. 33).

  [16] Nortier v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, pp.

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  To find nevertheless that there has been a breach of Article 6 (art. 6) in the instant case on account of the failure to have the Attorney-General's innocuous observations sent to the defence amounts, in my view, to a perversion of the very wise maxim "the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" (Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, para. 33, third sub-paragraph).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  [22] Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, para.
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  1 (art. 6-1) - notably in regard to observance of the fundamental principle of the impartiality of the courts - would not be consonant with the object and purpose of the provision (art. 6-1), bearing in mind the prominent place which the right to a fair trial holds in a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention (see the Delcourt v. Belgium judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, pp. 14-15, para. 25 in fine).".
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87

  SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

  [18] Sainte-Marie v. France judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-A, pp.
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 27.11.1987 - 9976/82

  BEN YAACOUB v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90

  KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND

• BVerfG, 30.06.2014 - 2 BvR 792/11

  Verwerfung der Revision in Strafsachen auch ohne mündliche Verhandlung möglich

  Dabei ist eine Gesamtbetrachtung der nationalen Verfahrensordnung und der Rolle des Rechtsmittelgerichts darin vorzunehmen (vgl. EGMR, Kerojärvi v. Finland, Urteil vom 19. Juli 1995, Nr. 17506/90, § 40; Bulut v. Austria, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1996, Nr. 17358/90, § 40 f.; Hoppe v. Germany, Urteil vom 5. Dezember 2002, Nr. 28422/95, § 62 f.;… Rippe v. Germany, Entscheidung vom 2. Februar 2006, Nr. 5398/03, juris, Rn. 49 f.; Dan v. Moldova, Urteil vom 5. Juli 2011, Nr. 8999/07, § 30).

  (1) Als ein wesentliches Kriterium für die Entbehrlichkeit einer öffentlichen mündlichen Verhandlung vor Rechtsmittelgerichten betrachtet der Gerichtshof, ob in vorangegangener Instanz mündlich und öffentlich verhandelt wurde (vgl. EGMR, Axen v. Germany, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1983, Nr. 8273/78, EGMR-E 2, 321 , § 28; Bulut v. Austria, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1996, Nr. 17358/90, § 41 f.; Hoppe v. Germany, Urteil vom 5. Dezember 2002, Nr. 28422/95, § 63 f.; Miller v. Sweden, Urteil vom 8. Februar 2005, Nr. 55853/00, § 30).

  Weiter berücksichtigt der Gerichtshof, ob ausschließlich Rechtsfragen oder auch Sachverhaltsfragen Gegenstand der Prüfung durch das Rechtsmittelgericht sind (vgl. EGMR, Bulut v. Austria, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1996, Nr. 17358/90, § 41; Dan v. Moldova, Urteil vom 5. Juli 2011, Nr. 8999/07, § 30).

  Ebenfalls zu berücksichtigen sind die offensichtliche Aussichtslosigkeit des Rechtsmittels (vgl. EGMR, Bulut v. Austria, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1996, Nr. 17358/90, § 42) sowie die Notwendigkeit, den Geschäftsanfall zu bewältigen und innerhalb angemessener Zeit zu entscheiden (vgl. EGMR, Hoppe v. Germany, Urteil vom 5. Dezember 2002, Nr. 28422/95, § 63;… Rippe v. Germany, Entscheidung vom 2. Februar 2006, Nr. 5398/03, juris, Rn. 49).

  Der Gerichtshof respektiert dabei die unterschiedliche Ausgestaltung der Rechtsmittelzüge in den Vertragsstaaten, die entweder eine vorgelagerte Annahmeentscheidung voraussetzen, für die der Öffentlichkeitsgrundsatz ohnehin nicht gilt (vgl. EGMR, Monnell and Morris v. United Kingdom, Urteil vom 2. März 1987, Nr. 9562/81 und 9818/82, § 58), oder eine andere, vergleichbare Möglichkeit zur vereinfachten Erledigung aussichtsloser Rechtsmittel vorsehen (vgl. EGMR, Bulut v. Austria, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1996, Nr. 17358/90, § 42;… Rippe v. Germany, Entscheidung vom 2. Februar 2006, Nr. 5398/03, juris, Rn. 52).

• BVerfG, 18.09.2018 - 2 BvR 745/18

  Aufrechterhaltung der Untersuchungshaft und Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör …

  Jedenfalls dann, wenn dieser Verfahrensbeteiligte bestimmte Anträge in Bezug auf das rechtliche Begehren eines anderen Verfahrensbeteiligten stellt, ist jedoch nicht mehr von einem in diesem Sinne neutralen Verfahrensbeteiligten auszugehen; auch in diesen Fällen ist der andere Verfahrensbeteiligte daher über etwaige Stellungnahmen mit der realistischen Möglichkeit der seinerseitigen Erwiderung in Kenntnis zu setzen (vgl. EGMR, Bulut v. Austria, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1996, Nr. 17358/90, §§ 48 ff., m.w.N.).