Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARLOV-TKALCIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  The Court reiterates that in cases of this kind even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], cited above, § 68, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  The Court reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A; and Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).

 
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  The Court reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A; and Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  One must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, mutatis mutandis, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  The Court further reiterates that the concepts of independence and objective impartiality are closely linked (see, for example, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, § 73, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I) and that it is sometimes difficult to dissociate them (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine, no. 7577/02, § 68, 3 May 2007).

• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

  This "internal judicial independence" implies that judges do not receive instructions and are not subjected to pressure from their colleagues or from persons exercising administrative responsibilities in a court, such as the president of a court or the president of a court's section (see Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia, no. 24810/06, § 86, 22 December 2009, and Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, § 137, 6 October 2011; see also Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 182, 9 October 2008).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.04.2024 - C-647/21

  D. K. (Dessaisissement d'un juge) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …

  60 Urteil des EGMR vom 22. Dezember 2009, (CE:ECHR:2009:1222JUD002481006, § 86).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.03.2021 - C-357/19

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Bobek sind Entscheidungen eines …

  70 Insbesondere EGMR, 22. Dezember 2009, Parlov-Tkalcic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2009:1222JUD002481006).

  88 EGMR, 22. Dezember 2009, Parlov-Tkalcic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2009:1222JUD002481006, § 86 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 963/18

  SPLAJT v. CROATIA

  On the latter point, the Court refers to its findings in Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia, no. 24810/06, §§ 78-97, 22 December 2009 to the effect that under Croatian law court presidents cannot influence the choice of judge rapporteurs or the composition of panels and that their powers cannot reasonably be viewed as running counter or having "chilling" effects on the internal independence of judges.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.10.2023 - C-554/21

  HANN-INVEST - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 19 Abs. 1 Unterabs. 2 EUV - …

  46 EGMR, 22. Dezember 2009, Parlov-Tkalcic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2009:1222JUD002481006, §§ 86 bis 88).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18

  TADIC v. CROATIA

  What is at stake is the confidence that the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public (see Castillo Algar v. Spain, 28 October 1998, § 45, Reports 1998-VIII, and Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia, no. 24810/06, § 82, 22 December 2009).
• EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 28417/07

  BOYAN GOSPODINOV c. BULGARIE

  Il ajoute que, concernant l'approche objective, ce qui importe ce n'est pas tant le point de vue de l'accusé, mais le fait de savoir si ses appréhensions peuvent passer pour objectivement justifiées (Parlov-Tkalcic c. Croatie, no 24810/06, § 80, 22 décembre 2009).
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 24876/07

  LORENZETTI c. ITALIE

  Enfin, dans la mesure où le requérant allègue que son inimitié vis-à-vis M. C. a influencé ses vicissitudes disciplinaires (paragraphe 31 ci-dessus), la Cour rappelle avoir dit que les juges doivent être libres de toute pression qui pourrait être exercée par leurs collègues ou par ceux qui, comme le président d'un tribunal ou de l'une de ses sections, ont des responsabilités administratives dans le secteur de la justice (voir, notamment, Parlov-Tkalcic c. Croatie, no 24810/06, § 86, 22 décembre 2009).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 35630/04

  OGRAZDEN AD AND OTHERS v.

  It therefore cannot be regarded as adequate in the circumstances of the case (see the principles established under the Court's case-law in Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V; see also Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia, no. 24810/06, § 62, 22 December 2009) and leads to the conclusion that the redress provided to them at domestic level was insufficient (see Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, § 20, 17 July 2008).