Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. AND A.G.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 45619/99

  The Court observes that, in the context of a criminal hearing, it has held that the mere fact that a judge has also made pre-hearing decisions in the case cannot be taken as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see, for example, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, § 50; the above-mentioned Fey judgment, p. 12, § 30, and the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p.p. 20-21, § 28).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 45619/99

  Although the applicants were fully entitled to exercise their procedural rights so as to have the case against them dismissed (see the Pretto and Others v. Italy judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, § 34), they cannot have been oblivious to the consequences which this entailed for the listing of the main action.
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 45619/99

  The Court recalls that the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether there are ascertainable facts which may raise doubts as to his impartiality (see, mutatis mutandis, the Fey v. Austria judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 28).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 45619/99

  The Court observes that, in the context of a criminal hearing, it has held that the mere fact that a judge has also made pre-hearing decisions in the case cannot be taken as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality (see, for example, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, § 50; the above-mentioned Fey judgment, p. 12, § 30, and the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p.p. 20-21, § 28).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

  VALCHEV v. BULGARIA and 3 ohter applications

  In addition, in many cases the former Commission and the Court have reviewed various aspects of permission-to-appeal or similar proceedings under that provision (see Webb v. the United Kingdom, no. 33186/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. and A.G.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45619/99, 29 February 2000; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002; Stepinska v. France, no. 1814/02, §§ 15-19, 15 June 2004; Guz v. Poland (dec.), no. 29293/02, 19 May 2005; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2006-VI; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007; Mrúz v. Hungary, no. 3261/05, § 20, 14 October 2008; Lajos Németh v. Hungary, no. 3840/05, § 20, 21 October 2008; Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 199, 7 July 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-25, 19 January 2010; Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62793/10, §§ 27-40, 23 October 2012).