Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRACLE EUROPE KFT v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIRACLE EUROPE KFT v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  This expression reflects the principle of the rule of law, which is inherent in the system of protection established by the Convention and its Protocols (see, for example, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  Thus the Court may find a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention if the proceedings taken as a whole did not satisfy the requirements of a fair hearing even if each procedural defect, taken alone, would not have convinced the Court that the proceedings were "unfair" (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 89, Series A no. 146; and Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, § 165, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  In this respect, even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86).

 
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  According to the Court's settled case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to: (i) a subjective test, where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge - that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and (ii) an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, among other authorities, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 28 and 30, Series A no. 255; and Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  At the same time, "neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the Convention requires States to comply with any theoretical constitutional concepts regarding the permissible limits of the powers" interaction" (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 193, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  MIROSHNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  What is decisive is whether the party's doubts can be held to be objectively justified (see, amongst others, Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-I; and Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 61, 27 November 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

  MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  What is decisive is whether the party's doubts can be held to be objectively justified (see, amongst others, Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-I; and Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 61, 27 November 2008, with further references).

• EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-791/19

  Kommission/ Polen (Régime disciplinaire des juges) - Vertragsverletzung eines …

  Insbesondere könne der Umstand, dass weder die Gründe, aus denen eine solche Verweisung erfolgen könne, noch die Kriterien, die ihr zugrunde liegen müssten, in den anwendbaren Rechtsvorschriften präzisiert worden seien, geeignet sein, den Anschein fehlender Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit des nach freiem Ermessen bestimmten Gerichts zu erwecken, und nicht den Grad an Vorhersehbarkeit und Gewissheit biete, der erforderlich sei, damit ein solches Gericht als "auf Gesetz beruhend" angesehen werden könne (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 12. Januar 2016, Miracle Europe kft/Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2016:0112JUD005777413, § 58, 63 und 67).

  Wie die Kommission vorgetragen hat, könnte ein solches Ermessen ohne derartige Kriterien insbesondere dazu genutzt werden, bestimmte Fälle bestimmten Richtern zuzuweisen und ihre Zuweisung an andere Richter zu vermeiden, oder um Druck auf die so ausgewählten Richter auszuüben (vgl. in diesem Sinne auch EGMR, 12. Januar 2016, Miracle Europe kft/Ungarn, ECHR:2016:0112JUD005777413, § 58).

• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 26374/18

  GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND

  In a number of cases the Court held that it could not question the interpretation of domestic law by a domestic court unless there had been a "flagrant violation" or a "flagrant breach" of domestic law (see, specifically with respect to the requirement that a tribunal must be established "by law", Lavents, cited above, § 114; Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-III; DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, § 61, 5 October 2010; Kontalexis v. Greece, no. 59000/08, § 39, 31 May 2011; ? orgic v. Serbia, no. 34973/06, § 63, 3 November 2011; Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 8162/13, § 75, 8 July 2014; and Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary, no. 57774/13, § 50, 12 January 2016; see also paragraph 100 of the present judgment).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.05.2021 - C-791/19

  Generalanwalt Tanchev: Der Gerichtshof sollte urteilen, dass das polnische Gesetz …

  71 CE:ECHR:2016:0112JUD005777413, §§ 57 bis 63 und 67.

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-216/21

  Generalanwalt Emiliou: Ein Verfahren für die Beförderung von Richtern, das auf …

  74 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 12. Januar 2016, Miracle Europe Kft./Ungarn, (CE:ECHR:2016:0112JUD005777413, § 58).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 46/15

  NASTASE c. ROUMANIE

  70-80, et Miracle Europe Kft [c. Hongrie, no 57774/13], § 51[, 12 janvier 2016]).
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 46131/19

  TOIVANEN v. FINLAND

  The Court is mindful that issues regarding the allocation of a case to a particular court, formation or judge are usually examined under the "established by law" aspect of Article 6 (see, for example, Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary, no. 57774/13, §§ 62-67, 12 January 2016; DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, § 65 et seq, 5 October 2010; Pasquini v. San Marino, no. 50956/16, §§ 106-13, 2 May 2019; and contrast, Tempel v. the Czech Republic, no. 44151/12, § 65 and § 71, 25 June 2020).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 5692/13

  CSÁSZY AND TÁTRAI v. HUNGARY

  The relevant domestic law is set out in Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary (no. 57774/13, §§ 16-21, 12 January 2016).