Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SACCOCCIA v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P1-1 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  It has repeatedly held that in this sphere the national authorities, having regard to the demands of efficiency and economy, could abstain from holding a hearing since systematically holding hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in social-security proceedings (see, for instance, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 41, 12 November 2002; and Pitkänen v. Sweden (dec.), no. 52793/99, 26 August 2003).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  It has already held that measures, which are designed to block movements of suspect capital, are an effective and necessary weapon in that fight (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  According to the Court's case-law, the right to a "public hearing" under Article 6 § 1 entails the right to an "oral hearing" unless there are circumstances which justify dispensing with such a hearing (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 19 February 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-I, with reference to Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 283-A, and Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, 23 April 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-II).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  The Court refers to its established case-law on the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the manner in which the three rules contained in that provision are to be applied (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 29 and 30, Series A no. 316-A).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  As to the applicant's claim that the requirements laid down in these provisions were not complied with, it has to be borne in mind that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among many other authorities, Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 51, ECHR 2002-IV, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 50, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  The Court refers to its established case-law on the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the manner in which the three rules contained in that provision are to be applied (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 29 and 30, Series A no. 316-A).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 325-A, and Werner v. Austria, 24 November 1997, § 45, Reports 1997-VII).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

  As to the applicant's claim that the requirements laid down in these provisions were not complied with, it has to be borne in mind that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among many other authorities, Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 51, ECHR 2002-IV, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 50, Series A no. 192).