Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GABRIEL v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06

  The Government submitted that Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue because, at the time of the events, the Court's judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), had not yet been given and under the Pellegrin test (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, §..., ECHR 1999-VIII) Article 6 would not have been applicable to disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant such as the applicant.
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06

  The Government submitted that Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue because, at the time of the events, the Court's judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), had not yet been given and under the Pellegrin test (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, §..., ECHR 1999-VIII) Article 6 would not have been applicable to disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant such as the applicant.
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06

  Thus the applicant would be entitled to a hearing before that court unless exceptional circumstances dispensed it from doing so (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171, p. 20 § 64).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06

  However, the justification under Article 6 § 1 of such an exclusion of the general public from a hearing in certain classes of cases is not the issue here, as hearings before the Administrative Court are in principle public (see Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 20, Series A no. 268-A).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06

  The Court finds that the Administrative Court was the only instance in the proceedings which qualifies as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp. 20-21, § 44, and Pauger v. Austria, judgment of 28 May 1997, Reports 1997-III).
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 34821/06

  The Court has accepted in the past that the requirement to hold a public hearing is not absolute and that it is consistent with Article 6 § 1 for a State to designate an entire class of cases as an exception to the general rule of public hearings (see B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39 ECHR 2001-III, and Osinger v. Austria, no. 54645/00, § 47, 24 March 2005).

• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 19844/08

  BECKER v. AUSTRIA

  In this respect the Court notes that it has found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in a number of similar cases (see, for instance, Gabriel v. Austria, no. 34821/06, § 31, 1 April 2010; Koottummel v. Austria, no. 49616/06, § 21, 10 December 2009; Emmer-Reissig v. Austria, no. 11032/04, § 31, 10 May 2007; Hofbauer v Austria, no. 7401/04, § 30, 10 May 2007; Brugger v. Austria, no. 76293/01, § 25, 26 January 2006; Schelling v. Austria, no. 55193/00, § 33, 10 November 2005).