Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,35145) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALGE v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
- EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93
BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97
The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, it has to consider whether the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for instance, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 80, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85
WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in each case according to the particular circumstances and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, namely the complexity of the case, the conduct of the authorities and the conduct of the parties (see Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 21, § 54; Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria, judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, p. 62, § 65). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97
Thus the applicant had been entitled to a hearing before that court unless exceptional circumstances would have dispensed it from doing so (Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171, p. 20 § 64). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97
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 (Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp. 20-21, § 44; Pauger v. Austria, judgment of 28 May 1997, Reports 1997-III).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,49199) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALGE v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
- EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law, the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, § 32; Fidler v. Austria (dec.), no. 28702/95, 23 February 1999, unreported). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
As regards the first argument the Court recalls that the mere fact that a person who was acting as expert in court proceedings was at the same time a civil servant was not sufficient to cast doubt on the impartiality of that person (Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 44; Ettl and Others v. Austria, judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, pp. 19-20, § 40). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
The Court recalls further that as a general rule it is for the national courts, and in particular the courts of first instance, to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the autonomous sense given to that word in the Convention system; it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89; Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33). - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
The Court recalls further that as a general rule it is for the national courts, and in particular the courts of first instance, to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the autonomous sense given to that word in the Convention system; it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89; Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33).