Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUISSET c. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 en raison de l'absence de publicité des débats Violation de l'art. 6-1 en raison de la durée de la procédure Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUISSET v. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the lack of a hearing in public Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the length of the proceedings Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 09.03.1998 - 33933/96
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

Wird zitiert von ... (35)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  The Government noted that, under the case-law of the Convention institutions, applicants who have not been found guilty in the impugned proceedings or whose convictions have been set aside cannot claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34, irrespective of the reasons for their being exonerated (see the Adolf v. Austria judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, pp. 17-19, §§ 35-41).

  The judgment in the case of Adolf v. Austria of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, which has been cited as an authority, itself draws some careful distinctions.

• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  17-18, § 35; and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December, 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 21, § 42.
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  See, for example, the following judgments: De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 10 March 1972, Series A no. 14, p. 11, § 23; Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp.
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, among other authorities, the Szücs v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, p. 2481, § 42; and the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  The Court reiterates that the Convention institutions have ruled that applicants will only cease to have standing as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention if the national authorities have acknowledged the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and then afforded redress (see the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, § 66).

• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  What is more, the autonomous interpretation adopted by the Convention institutions of the notion of a "criminal charge" by applying the Engel criteria have underpinned a gradual broadening of the criminal head to cases not strictly belonging to the traditional categories of the criminal law, for example administrative penalties (Öztürk, cited above), prison disciplinary proceedings (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80), customs law (Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A), competition law (Société Stenuit v. France, 27 February 1992, Series A no. 232-A), and penalties imposed by a court with jurisdiction in financial matters (Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Moreover, the Court also reiterates that, with regard to certain French administrative authorities which have jurisdiction in economic and financial law and enjoy sentencing powers, it has held that the criminal limb of Article 6 applied, in particular, with regard to the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court (Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX), the Financial Markets Board (Didier v. France (dec.), no. 58188/00, 27 August 2002), the Competition Commission (Lilly France S.A. v. France (dec.), no. 53892/00, 3 December 2002), the sanctions committee of the financial market supervisory authorities (Messier v. France (dec.), no. 25041/07, 19 May 2009), and the Banking Commission (Dubus S.A., cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39472/07

  POPOV c. FRANCE

  La Cour rappelle que ne peut pas se prétendre « victime ", au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention, celui qui, au plan national, a obtenu un redressement adéquat des violations alléguées de la Convention (entre autres, mutatis mutandis, Eckle c. Allemagne, 15 juillet 1982, § 66, série A no 51, Amuur c. France, 25 juin 1996, § 36, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-III, Guisset c. France, no 33933/96, § 66, CEDH 2000-XI, et Kaftailova c. Lettonie (déc.), no 59653/00, 21 octobre 2004).

 
• EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  RICHARD-DUBARRY contre la FRANCE

  Similarly, prior to Guisset v. France (no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX), the Conseil d'Etat had held that proceedings against an authorising officer before the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court amounted to a criminal charge (CE, 30 October 1998, Lorenzi, Recueil Lebon, p. 374).

  The Government therefore submitted that, unlike the Belgian Court of Audit (see Muyldermans, cited above), or, for example, the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court, which determined criminal charges (see Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX), the French Court of Audit and regional audit offices could not, when auditing accounts, judge the failings of accountants in the exercise of their functions.

• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 49699/99

  SIFFRE, ECOFFET et BERNARDINI c. FRANCE

  De même, précédant l'arrêt Guisset c. France (no 33933/96, CEDH 2000-IX), le Conseil d'Etat a jugé que les poursuites engagées contre un ordonnateur devant la Cour de discipline budgétaire et financière constituent une accusation en matière pénale (CE, 30 octobre 1998, Lorenzi, Rec. p. 374).

  La Cour rappelle que, de manière générale, les procédures devant les Cours des comptes entrent dans le champ d'application de l'article 6 § 1 (Francesco Lombardo c. Italie, arrêt du 29 novembre 1992, série A no 249-B ; Bottazzi c. Italie [GC], no 34884/97, arrêt du 28 juillet 1999, Recueil 1999-V ; Logothetis c. Grèce, no 46352/99, arrêt du 12 avril 2001), et qu'elle a déjà jugé que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention était applicable, sous son volet pénal, à la procédure devant la Cour de discipline budgétaire et financière française (Guisset c. France, no 33933/96, décision du 9 mars 1998 et arrêt précité, § 59) et, sous son volet civil, à la procédure devant les CRC et la Cour des comptes dans une affaire où aucune amende n'avait été infligée au comptable de fait (Richard-Dubarry c. France (déc.), no 53929/00, CEDH 2003-XI (extraits) ; Martinie c. France (déc.), no 58675/00, CEDH 2004-II (extraits)).

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

  MARTINIE c. FRANCE

  Referring to Guisset v. France (no. 33933/96, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2000-IX), he added that he had neither been summoned to the hearing nor invited to submit his observations, nor even informed of the date of the hearing, which, moreover, was not public.
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 5242/04

  DUBUS S.A. c. FRANCE

  De telles sanctions entraînent des conséquences financières importantes, et partant, peuvent être qualifiées de sanctions pénales, (mutatis mutandis, Guisset c. France, no 33933/96, § 59, CEDH 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 38282/97

  Menschenrechte: Ausgestaltung und Dauer eines Sorgerechts- und Umgangsverfahren

  Der Gerichtshof weist ferner darauf hin, dass die Opfereigenschaft eines Beschwerdeführers im Sinne des Artikels 34 der Konvention nur dann entfällt, wenn die nationalen Behörden die behaupteten Verletzungen ausdrücklich oder der Sache nach anerkannt und sodann die Konventionsverletzung wieder gutgemacht haben (siehe unter anderem Rechtssachen Eckle ./. Deutschland , Urteil vom 15. Juli 1982, Serie A Bd. 51, S. 30, Nr. 66; Dalban ./. Rumänien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28114/95, Nr. 44, EuGHMHR 1999-VI; und Guisset ./. Frankreich , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33933/96, Nr. 66, EuGHMR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  As to the applicant's victim status, the Court reiterates that an applicant may lose his victim status if two conditions are met: first, the authorities should acknowledge the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and, second, afford redress (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, §§ 69; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2000-IX; and Stephens v. Malta (no. 1), no. 11956/07, § 58, 21 April 2009).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  In any event, the Court cannot agree with the Government that the applicant has ceased to have standing as a victim within the meaning of Article 34. The Court reiterates in this connection that an applicant may lose his victim status if two conditions are met: first, the authorities should acknowledge the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and, second, afford redress (see Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  KAFTAILOVA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 3342/11

  RICHMOND YAW ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  GEORGOULEAS AND NESTORAS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2324/08

  SOCIETE BOUYGUES TELECOM c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  SHEVANOVA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 30508/96

  PITKANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 5488/05

  SIMSEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 10212/07

  DURAND c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 73443/01

  FREIMANIS ET LIDUMS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2004 - 58675/00

  MARTINIE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 68958/17

  MYSLIHAKA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  BARTIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59443/12

  REZNIK AND GUZEYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 20620/10

  ERCAN BOZKURT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 32072/06

  CATANA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 19750/03

  AGVPS-BACAU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 70456/01

  SAYOUD c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30183/06

  VERNES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 34175/05

  D.J. ET A.-K.R. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14139/03

  BOLAT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2002 - 50029/99

  MIKHEYEVA contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 25041/07

  MESSIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 7906/05

  BOZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 69405/01

  FJODOROVA ET AUTRES c. LETTONIE