Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 11.05.2004

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 46845/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,56227
EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 46845/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,56227)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.02.2005 - 46845/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,56227)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Februar 2005 - 46845/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,56227)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,56227) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    INDRA v. SLOVAKIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 with regard to fairness Not necessary to examine under Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 25.02.1997 - 22107/93

    FINDLAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 46845/99
    In the light of the above finding under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the lack of impartiality of the tribunal (see paragraph 55 above), the Court finds that it is not necessary for it to consider separately the complaints of the violation of the further elements of the fair trial relied on by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, no. 22107/93, § 80, ECHR 1997-I).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

    WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 46845/99
    The Court reiterates that the question whether a tribunal is impartial for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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, by ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

    NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

    Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the lack of impartiality of the tribunal (see the preceding paragraph), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant's complaint that his trial had been unfair in other aspects (see, mutatis mutandis, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, no. 22107/93, § 80, ECHR 1997-I and Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, § 58, 1 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 36073/04

    FAZLI ASLANER v. TURKEY

    This would be the case, for instance, where the questions with which they had successively had to deal were similar, or at least if the difference between them was negligible (see, among many other authorities, Kleyn and Others v. Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 201, ECHR 2003-VI; Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51 to 55, 1 February 2005; Toziczka v. Poland, no. 29995/08, §§ 36 and 42 to 46, 24 July 2012; and Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 52, Series A no. 154).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 31351/06

    STEULET c. SUISSE

    La simple circonstance qu'un magistrat se soit déjà prononcé dans le cadre d'une autre procédure concernant le requérant ne saurait, à elle seule, porter atteinte à l'impartialité de ce juge (voir, a contrario, Indra c. Slovaquie, no 46845/99, §§ 51-53, 1er février 2005).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

    BERHANI v. ALBANIA

    The Court consequently considers that the participation of two judges in the adoption of the judgment of 19 March 2002 did not undermine the impartiality of the Court of Appeal since the applicant's misgivings cannot be regarded as objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Sainte-Marie v. France, 16 December 1992, §§ 32-34, Series A no. 253-A and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, §§ 48-50, ECHR 2000-VI; see, a contrario, Castillo Algar, cited above, §§ 47-51, and Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 46845/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,45075
EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 46845/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,45075)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.05.2004 - 46845/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,45075)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Mai 2004 - 46845/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,45075)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,45075) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

    WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 46845/99
    The Court recalls that the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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, by ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 46845/99
    For similar reasons, in this respect the applicants did not have an "arguable claim" and Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to this part of the application (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 46845/99
    The Court thus considers that any possible failings in respect of impartiality of the District Court judge dealing with the case were cured by the re-hearing of the case on the appeal (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 19, § 33).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht