Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEISTER v. GERMANY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 07.03.1991 - 14622/89

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25157/94

  14622/89, Dec.

  59; see also No. 14622/89, Dec.

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25157/94

  Guardian judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp.
• EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

  Barthold ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25157/94

  of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, pp.
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25157/94

  Series A no. 165, p. 18, para.
• EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12306/86

  M. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25157/94

  His previous Application No. 12306/86 was declared inadmissible.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  A. v. FINLAND

  The Court notes that the present case bears similarities with Meister v. Germany, where counsel had made insulting statements about judges and other persons whom he regarded as having decided or acted incorrectly in the context of, or in relation to, court proceedings (no. 25157/94 and no. 30549/96, Commission decisions of 18 October 1995 and 10 April 1997, respectively, unreported), with W.R. v. Austria, where counsel had described the opinion of a judge as "ridiculous" (no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, unreported) and Mahler v. Germany, where counsel had stated at the trial that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication" (no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, unreported).
• EKMR, 10.04.1997 - 30549/96

  MEISTER v. GERMANY

  Application No. 25157/94 concerning his disciplinary.
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 69582/13

  MARTIN v. HUNGARY

  The Court notes that the present case bears similarities with Meister v. Germany (nos. 25157/94 and 30549/96, Commission decisions of 18 October 1995 and 10 April 1997, respectively (unreported)), where a lawyer made insulting statements about judges and other persons whom he regarded as having decided or acted incorrectly in the context of, or in relation to, court proceedings; with W.R. v. Austria (no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997 (unreported)), where a lawyer described the opinion of a judge as "ridiculous"; with Mahler v. Germany (no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998 (unreported)), where a lawyer asserted that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication"; with A. v. Finland ((dec.), no. 44998/98, 8 January 2004), where the applicant was issued with a warning for his statements of a disparaging nature submitted in a written appeal concerning the presiding judge; with Saday v. Turkey (no. 32458/96, 30 March 2006), where the accused described the Turkish judiciary as "executioners dressed in gowns"; with Zugic v. Croatia (no. 3699/08, 31 May 2011), where the applicant's notice of appeal used a langue implying that the judge as a person was arrogant and incompetent to exercise the duty of a judge; and with Kincses v. Hungary, (no. 66232/10, 27 January 2015), where a lawyer's submissions amounted to belittling the sitting judge's professional capacities and implied that the court in question had circumvented the law.