Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARIUSZ LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  In such a situation the confusion of roles between complainant, prosecutor and judge could self-evidently prompt objectively justified fears as to the conformity of the proceedings with the time-honoured principle that no one should be a judge in his or her own cause and, consequently, as to the impartiality of the bench (see Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, §§ 41-42, Series A no. 210).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  The Court reiterates that the criteria of applicability of Article 6 under its criminal head have long been established by its case-law as follows: (a) the domestic classification of the offence; (b) the nature of the offence; and (c) the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risked incurring (see, among many other authorities, Engel and others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 82-83, Series A no. 22, and Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 48-50, Series A no. 73).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  The principle that a tribunal shall be presumed to be free of personal prejudice or bias is long-established in the case-law of the Court (see, for example, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 58, Series A no. 43).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  This, however, is not decisive (see, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 68, Series A no. 80).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 75737/01

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit der Richter …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  The applicant relied on the Court's judgments in the cases of Schwarzenberger v. Germany, no. 75737/01, 10 August 2006, and Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, ECHR 2005-XIII.
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  The Court has thus distinguished between a subjective approach - that is, endeavouring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular case - and an objective approach - that is, determining whether he or she offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 30, Series A no. 53, and Grieves v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 57067/00, § 69, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will or has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal reasons (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 25, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  In applying the subjective test, the Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 47, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

  ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09

  The procedural safeguards laid down by Article 6 of the Convention did not, as a rule, apply to various preliminary measures which could be taken as a part of a criminal investigation before bringing a criminal charge, such as the arrest or interviewing of a suspect (Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, § 34, ECHR 1999-VII).

• BAG, 07.11.2012 - 7 AZR 646/10

  Gesetzlicher Richterausschluss - Befangenheit

  Maßgeblich ist, ob die Besorgnis der Befangenheit objektiv gerechtfertigt ist (EGMR 3. Juli 2012 - 66484/09 - [Mariusz Lewandowski ./. Polen] mwN) .
• BAG, 20.08.2019 - 3 AZN 530/19

  Befangenheit - Mitwirkung an Entwicklung und Aufrechterhaltung ständiger …

  Maßgeblich ist, ob die Besorgnis der Befangenheit objektiv gerechtfertigt ist (EGMR 3. Juli 2012 - 66484/09 - [Mariusz Lewandowski ./. Polen] mwN) .
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 14156/07

  HAKOBYAN AND AMIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  Other judges of the Court have also spoken out in the past against this judicial approach, which I consider erroneous (see, inter alia, the dissenting opinions of judges Bo?.njak and K?«ris in the case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019), judges Nußberger and Ranzoni in Kuzmenko v. Ukraine (no. 49526/07, 9 March 2017), judge De Gaetano in Mariusz Lewandowski v. Poland (no. 66484/09, 3 July 2012), judge Mularoni in Ki??mir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95, 31 May 2005), judges Tulkens, Spielmann and Laffranque in Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC] (no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), and judges Rozakis, Bratza, Bonello, Loucaides and Jociene in Draon v. France [GC] (no. 1513/03, 6 October 2005)).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  SLOMKA v. POLAND

  The Government also stressed that, unlike in the case of Mariusz Lewandowski v. Poland (no. 66484/09, 3 July 2012), the judges had not been called to assess the applicant's statements in so far as they might have insulted them personally but only in so far as they concerned the court as an institution.