Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUBNER v. AUSTRIA

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  The Court, having regard to the nature of the applicant's offences of failing to comply with specific industrial safety regulations, their qualification under domestic law as administrative criminal offences and the severity of the punishments involved, finds that the applicant was convicted of criminal offences within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 18, § 50; the Gradinger v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 61, §§ 35-36).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  The Court, having regard to the nature of the applicant's offences of failing to comply with specific industrial safety regulations, their qualification under domestic law as administrative criminal offences and the severity of the punishments involved, finds that the applicant was convicted of criminal offences within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 18, § 50; the Gradinger v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 61, §§ 35-36).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  It seems appropriate in the instant case to look at the applicants' complaints from the points of view of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 6 taken together, especially as the guarantees in paragraphs 2 and 3 represent aspects of the concept of a fair trial contained in paragraph 1 (see, inter alia, the Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, § 29).

• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  However, having regard to the criteria developed in its case-law for the qualification of tribunals under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the relevant domestic provisions on the institution and powers of Independent Administrative Tribunals, the Court finds that the Upper Austria Independent Administrative Tribunal has to be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 95; the Sramek v. Austria judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A no. 84, pp. 17-18, §§ 36-38; the Ettl v. Austria judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, pp.
• EGMR, 22.10.1984 - 8790/79

  Sramek ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  However, having regard to the criteria developed in its case-law for the qualification of tribunals under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the relevant domestic provisions on the institution and powers of Independent Administrative Tribunals, the Court finds that the Upper Austria Independent Administrative Tribunal has to be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 95; the Sramek v. Austria judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A no. 84, pp. 17-18, §§ 36-38; the Ettl v. Austria judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, pp.
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  As regards the applicant's complaints about the Tribunal's taking of evidence and the Administrative Court's decision only to entertain part of his complaint, the Court recalls that, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce (see the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33).
• EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92

  E.M. c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  Such a right to apply for leave to appeal to a higher court can in itself be regarded as a review within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (see Eur. Commission HR, No. 18066/91, Dec. 6.4.94, D.R. 77, p. 37; No. 20087/92, Dec. 26.10.95, D.R. 83, p. 5).
• EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26808/95

  HAUSER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  Decisions given by the Administrative Court pursuant to section 33a of the Administrative Court Act may be equated to decisions given on applications for leave to appeal (see Eur. Commission HR, No. 26808/95, Dec. 16.1.96, unpublished).
• EKMR, 06.04.1994 - 18066/91

  NÄSS v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 34311/96

  Such a right to apply for leave to appeal to a higher court can in itself be regarded as a review within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (see Eur. Commission HR, No. 18066/91, Dec. 6.4.94, D.R. 77, p. 37; No. 20087/92, Dec. 26.10.95, D.R. 83, p. 5).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 38544/97

  WEH AND WEH v. AUSTRIA

  Such a right to apply for leave to appeal to a higher court can in itself be regarded as a review within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (see Hubner v. Austria, (dec.) no. 34311/96, 31.8.99 with further references).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.07.2013 - C-60/12

  Baláž - Polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen - …

  {FN:34} - Vgl. Urteile des EGMR vom 31. August 1999, Hubner/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 34311/96), und vom 20. Dezember 2001, Baischer/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 32381/96).