Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STURUA v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  The Court further observes that in the context of the first condition it is not prevented from classifying a particular domestic body, outside the domestic judiciary, as a "court" for the purposes of the Vilho Eskelinen test (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 88, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  WARSICKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  In other words, on appeal, the same four judges were called upon to reconsider their own decision in the same case in its entirety, to review whether or not they themselves had committed any error in their assessment of the facts or of legal interpretation (compare with San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 61-66, ECHR 2004-IX; Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005; and HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia, no. 50996/08, §§ 37-42, 5 June 2014; contrast with Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, §§ 43-47, 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-38, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 30097/03

  MUMLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  As regards the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraph 21 above), the Court reiterates that it has already found the lodging of an individual constitutional complaint in Georgia to be an ineffective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention, mainly on account of the Constitutional Court's inability to set aside individual decisions by the public authorities or courts which directly affect complainants" rights (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 35-46, ECHR 2006-XIV; Mumladze v. Georgia, no. 30097/03, § 37, 8 January 2008; and Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 59, 19 June 2012).

 
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 18544/08

  CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. MALTA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  In other words, on appeal, the same four judges were called upon to reconsider their own decision in the same case in its entirety, to review whether or not they themselves had committed any error in their assessment of the facts or of legal interpretation (compare with San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 61-66, ECHR 2004-IX; Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005; and HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia, no. 50996/08, §§ 37-42, 5 June 2014; contrast with Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, §§ 43-47, 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-38, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08

  KHONIAKINA v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  As regards the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraph 21 above), the Court reiterates that it has already found the lodging of an individual constitutional complaint in Georgia to be an ineffective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention, mainly on account of the Constitutional Court's inability to set aside individual decisions by the public authorities or courts which directly affect complainants" rights (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 35-46, ECHR 2006-XIV; Mumladze v. Georgia, no. 30097/03, § 37, 8 January 2008; and Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 59, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  Firstly, the Government must show that the respondent State's national law expressly excludes access to a court for the post or category of staff in question and, secondly, the exclusion must be justified on objective grounds in the State's interest (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 9023/13

  TATO MARINHO DOS SANTOS COSTA ALVES DOS SANTOS ET FIGUEIREDO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  9023/13 and 78077/13, § 39, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 50996/08

  HIT D.D. NOVA GORICA v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  In other words, on appeal, the same four judges were called upon to reconsider their own decision in the same case in its entirety, to review whether or not they themselves had committed any error in their assessment of the facts or of legal interpretation (compare with San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 61-66, ECHR 2004-IX; Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005; and HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia, no. 50996/08, §§ 37-42, 5 June 2014; contrast with Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, §§ 43-47, 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-38, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 17056/06

  Micallef ./. Malta

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  The result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 74, ECHR 2009, and Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 90, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  Under the latter approach, what is decisive is whether the fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality can be held, irrespective of the judge's real personal standpoint, to be objectively justified (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 44, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 43509/08

  A. MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 38715/06

  CARDONA SERRAT c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  That being so, it is of the opinion that, from the standpoint of an objective observer, the whole of the enlarged bench cannot be said to have been tainted by the applicants" challenge to the President of the Supreme Court, especially when that judicial formation decided on the case by unanimous vote (compare, amongst others, with Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 35, 28 March 2017; Fazli Aslaner v. Turkey, no. 36073/04, §§ 37-39, 4 March 2014; Ferragut Pallach v. Spain (dec.), no. 1182/03, 28 February 2006; Garrido Guerrero v. Spain (dec.), no. 43715/98, ECHR 2000-III; OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, § 83, 30 May 2013; and Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 38, Series A no. 325-A).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  BILGEN v. TURKEY

  5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017; and Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, § 88, 31 October 2017), removed from an administrative position without the termination of their duties as a judge (see Baka, §§ 34 and 107-11, and Denisov, §§ 25, 47-48 and 54, both cited above) or suspended from judicial office (see Paluda v. Slovakia, no. 33392/12, § 34, 23 May 2017) or otherwise subjected to a disciplinary sanction (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 119-20).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15227/19

  XHOXHAJ v. ALBANIA

  69916/10 and 36531/11, § 37, 7 January 2016; and Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017).

 
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

  PELEKI c. GRÈCE

  Plusieurs catégories professionnelles ont été visées: des avocats (Brown c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 38644/97, 24 novembre 1998, Müller-Hartburg c. Autriche, no 47195/06, §§ 41-48, 19 février 2013, Helmut Blum c. Autriche, no 33060/10, § 59, 5 avril 2016, et Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 64735/14, §§ 51-57, 13 septembre 2016) ; des fonctionnaires (J.L. c. France (déc.), no 17055/90, 5 avril 1995, Costa c. Portugal (déc.), no 44135/98, 9 décembre 1999, Linde Falero c. Espagne (déc.), no 51535/99, 22 juin 2000, Moullet c. France (déc.), no 27521/04, 13 septembre 2007, Vagenas c. Grèce (déc.), no 53372/07, 23 août 2011, et Nikolova et Vandova c. Bulgarie, no 20688/04, § 59, 17 décembre 2013) ; des médecins (Ouendeno c. France (déc.), no 18441/91, 2 mars 1994) ; des militaires (Kaplan et Karaca c. Turquie (déc.), no 40536/98, Gökden et Karacol c. Turquie, (déc.), no 40535/98, Batur c. Turquie, (déc.), no 38604/97, Duran et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 38925/97, Yildirim c. Turquie (déc.), no 40800/98, et Durgun c. Turquie (déc.), no 40751/98, décisions du 4 juillet 2007) ; des liquidateurs judiciaires (Galina Kostova c. Bulgarie, no 36181/05, § 52, 12 novembre 2013) ; des juges (Oleksandr Volkov, précité, §§ 92-95, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, § 35, 9 juillet 2013, Sturua c. Géorgie, no 45729/05, § 28, 28 mars 2017, et Kamenos c. Chypre, no 147/07, §§ 50-53, 31 octobre 2017) et, comme dans les circonstances de la présente affaire, des notaires (Durand, décision précitée, §§ 55-60 ; voir également Yankov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 44768/10, 18 juin 2019).
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 24492/21

  OKTAY ALKAN v. TÜRKIYE

  5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017; Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, §§ 82-88, 31 October 2017; and Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia, no. 2463/12, §§ 49-59, 6 December 2022), reduction in salary following conviction for a serious disciplinary offence (see Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, §§ 118-23, 20 November 2012), removal from post (for example, President of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal or Vice-President of the Regional Court) while remaining a judge (see Baka, cited above, §§ 34 and 107-11; Denisov, cited above, § 54; and Broda and Bojara v. Poland, nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18, §§ 121-23, 29 June 2021), functions other than the principal activity of a judge (premature termination of the term of office of a judge elected to serve in the judicial council) while remaining a judge (see Grzeda, cited above, §§ 289-327) or judges being prevented from exercising their judicial functions after legislative reform (see Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, §§ 61 and 65-67, 22 July 2021).
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 22715/07

  ILIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Georgia, its practice under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning complaints about the fairness of disciplinary proceedings conducted against judges (see, for example, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 44-82, 25 September 2018; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 100-122, ECHR 2016; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 83-156, ECHR 2013; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, §§ 19-36, 28 March 2017; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 26-91, 5 February 2009, and Mariamidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 9154/06, 19 September 2017).
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 12611/08

  ALASANIA AND BARDAVELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Georgia, its practice under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning complaints about the fairness of disciplinary proceedings conducted against judges (see, for example, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 44-82, 25 September 2018; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 100-122, ECHR 2016; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 83-156, ECHR 2013; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, §§ 19-36, 28 March 2017; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 26-91, 5 February 2009, and Mariamidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 9154/06, 19 September 2017).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 7607/07

  TURAVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 119-128, 6 November 2018; Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 44-82, 25 September 2018; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 100-122, ECHR 2016; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 83-156, ECHR 2013; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, §§ 19-36, 28 March 2017; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 26-91, 5 February 2009, and Mariamidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 9154/06, 19 September 2017).