Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SPEIL v. AUSTRIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way in which it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, p. 109, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  Admittedly, neither the letter nor the spirit of this provision prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to have his case heard in public (Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, § 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002).

 
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  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, for example, the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33; Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 55, 12 July 2001).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  10-11, §§ 21-22; the Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp.
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  As regards compliance with Article 6, the Government argue, referring to Fejde v. Sweden (judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, § 33), Jan-Åke Andersson v. Sweden (judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-B, § 29) and Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2) (judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), that the applicant did not raise issues of fact and law that would have required an oral hearing before the Administrative Court.
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  The Court recalls that it has accepted on a number of occasions that the close relatives of a deceased applicant may be entitled to take his or her place (see for instance the Scherer v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287, p. 14-15, § 31 with further references).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  In the present case the applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing as none of the exceptions laid down in the second sentence of Article 6 § 1 applied (see the Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 64).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, in proceedings, as here, before a court of first and only instance the right to a "public hearing" under Article 6 § 1 entails an entitlement to an "oral hearing" unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, the Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2) judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, pp.
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 29477/95

  EISENSTECKEN c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 42057/98

  The Court recalls that Austria's reservation under Article 6 was found to be invalid (Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, §§ 24-30, ECHR 2000-X) and the Court is therefore called upon to examine whether the requirements of this provision were complied with.

• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 44164/14

  Pharma-Erbe siegt vor EGMR: LG Dresden hat Recht auf faires Verfahren verletzt

  Der Gerichtshof hat außergewöhnliche Umstände in Fällen anerkannt, in denen das Verfahren ausschließlich rechtliche oder sehr technische Fragen betraf (…siehe Schuler-Zgraggen./. Schweiz, 24. Juni 1993, Rdnr. 58, Serie A Nr. 263; Varela Assalino./. Portugal (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 64336/01, 25. April 2002; und Speil./. Österreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 42057/98, 5. September 2002).
• EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 23621/11

  Fröbrich ./. Deutschland - Stasi-Informant muss Entschädigung wegen DDR-Haft …

  Der Gerichtshof hat außergewöhnliche Umstände in Fällen anerkannt, in denen das Verfahren ausschließlich rechtliche oder sehr technische Fragen betraf (…siehe Schuler-Zgraggen./. Schweiz, 24. Juni 1993, Rdnr. 58, Serie A Nr. 263; Varela Assalino./. Portugal (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 64336/01, 25. April 2002; und Speil./. Österreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 42057/98, 5. September 2002).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  SCHÄDLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Therefore, having regard to the principles developed in the Strasbourg Court's case-law concerning a public oral hearing (the court referred, in particular, to Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been violated by the Administrative Court's refusal to hold a public oral hearing.

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, 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, for instance, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71; Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• KG, 18.12.2018 - 4 Ws 105/18

  Voraussetzungen einer mündlichen Erörterung vor der strafrechtlichen …

  Der vom Beschwerdeführer "angeregten" Anberaumung eines mündlichen Anhörungstermins bedurfte es unter Berücksichtigung der zu § 11 Abs. 3 StrRehaG entwickelten Grundsätze auch mit Blick auf die Rechtsprechung des EGMR zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK (…vgl. dazu etwa EGMR Göç/Türkei, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36590/97, Urt. v. 11. Juli 2002; Fredin/Schweden, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 12033/86, 18. Februar 1991; Salomonsson/Schweden, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 38978/97, 12. November 2002; Miller/Schweden, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 55853/00, 8. Februar 2005; Speil/Österreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 42057/98, 5. September 2002; Alatulkkila u.a./Finnland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33538/96, 28. Juli 2005; Jussila/Finnland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73053/01, 23. November 2006; Döry/Schweden, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28394/95, 12. November 2002; Dr. Madaus/Deutschland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44164/14, 9. Juni 2016; Fröbrich/Deutschland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23621/11, 16. März 2017 = NJW 2017, 2331 = EuGRZ 2017, 526 mwN) nicht.
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 19844/08

  BECKER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 10781/08

  OHNEBERG v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where the proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13

  MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA

  The Court has accepted exceptional circumstances in cases where the proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Speil v. Austria (dec.), no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 49616/06

  KOOTTUMMEL v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 55193/00

  SCHELLING v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19-20, § 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 46128/07

  SCHELLING v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19-20, § 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 57026/11

  BRAVO BELO v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 20527/13

  DÖLLER v. AUSTRIA