Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LETINCIC v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
LETINCIC v. CROATIA
Wird zitiert von ... (11) Neu Zitiert selbst (25)
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
FAZIA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
Both the Commission and the Court have acknowledged in their case-law that the requirement that a court or tribunal should have "full jurisdiction" ("pleine juridiction" in French) will be satisfied where it is found that the judicial body in question has exercised "sufficient jurisdiction" or provided "sufficient review" in the proceedings before it (see Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 76, 20 October 2015, and cases cited therein).However, in such a situation Article 6 § 1 requires that the decision of the administrative body be subject to subsequent supervision by a judicial body that has "full jurisdiction", in the sense of exercising "sufficient jurisdiction" (see Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 76, 20 October 2015), in order to review the "lawfulness" of the challenged act (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 84 and 86, Series A no. 52), and that the proceedings before the reviewing court themselves comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Albert and Le Compte, cited above, § 29; Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV; and Fazia Ali, cited above, § 75).
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
It is the Court's well-established case-law that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable to proceedings relating to social insurance rights ‒ including welfare assistance rights ‒ whenever a dispute arises between the administrative authorities and an individual over such rights (see, for example, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, § 40, Series A no. 99; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 46, Series A no. 263; Janssen v. Germany, no. 23959/94, § 40, 20 December 2001; and Bozic v. Croatia, no. 22457/02, § 26, 29 June 2006).Where the Court in its case-law refers to the proceedings "as a whole", it generally refers to the judicial proceedings as a whole, and in particular to the possibility that later stages in the proceedings may have remedied the shortcomings in earlier stages (see the cases referred to in paragraph 55 of the judgment: Feldbrugge, cited above, § 46 (shortcoming not cured); and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 52, Series A no. 263 (shortcoming cured)).
- EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79
FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
It is the Court's well-established case-law that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable to proceedings relating to social insurance rights ‒ including welfare assistance rights ‒ whenever a dispute arises between the administrative authorities and an individual over such rights (see, for example, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, § 40, Series A no. 99; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 46, Series A no. 263; Janssen v. Germany, no. 23959/94, § 40, 20 December 2001; and Bozic v. Croatia, no. 22457/02, § 26, 29 June 2006).As long as there was no (negative) decision by the Zagreb Office, there was no "dispute" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1. Obviously, Article 6 § 1 did not therefore apply at this stage of the proceedings (see Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, § 25, Series A no. 99, and Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 31, Series A no. 101).
- EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 32181/04
SIGMA RADIO TELEVISION LTD v. CYPRUS
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
It is sufficient to note that the court has the power to annul the challenged administrative act; whether the merits of the dispute are then decided by the court itself or by the competent administrative body does not affect that conclusion (see Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 32, Series A no. 268-A, and Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, § 153, 21 July 2011). - EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
The fact that the decision on the merits of the applicant's request for a family disability benefit was taken by an administrative body, which obviously did not meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1, is in itself not problematic from the point of view of the right to a court (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, a, Series A no. 43, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58). - EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13942/88
KRASKA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant had the right to obtain a proper examination of his arguments by the court (see Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, § 30, Series A no. 254-B, Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288, and the case-law cited in paragraph 48 of the present judgment). - EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79
Bönisch ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
In its case-law the Court has recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court-appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms inherent in the concept of a fair trial (see Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, §§ 30-35, Series A no. 92). - EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
The fact that the decision on the merits of the applicant's request for a family disability benefit was taken by an administrative body, which obviously did not meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1, is in itself not problematic from the point of view of the right to a court (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, a, Series A no. 43, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
However, in such a situation Article 6 § 1 requires that the decision of the administrative body be subject to subsequent supervision by a judicial body that has "full jurisdiction", in the sense of exercising "sufficient jurisdiction" (see Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 76, 20 October 2015), in order to review the "lawfulness" of the challenged act (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 84 and 86, Series A no. 52), and that the proceedings before the reviewing court themselves comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Albert and Le Compte, cited above, § 29; Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV; and Fazia Ali, cited above, § 75). - EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant had the right to obtain a proper examination of his arguments by the court (see Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, § 30, Series A no. 254-B, Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288, and the case-law cited in paragraph 48 of the present judgment). - EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79
VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86
ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 34418/04
CSOSZ v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05
FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11
PLACÌ v. ITALY
- EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06
PERIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 22457/02
BOZIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09
JACIMOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 20.12.2001 - 23959/94
JANSSEN v. GERMANY
- EGMR - 73383/17 (anhängig)
MOCHALOV v. RUSSIA and17 other applications
6 (1) - unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings - the courts mainly relied on the expert opinion produced by the regional office of the Federal Security Service and confirming that the applicant's post in Instagram contained a call to the public to take part in the unauthorised rally; the applicant's request to obtain an additional expert opinion from a non-state affiliated institution was rejected (see Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 50, 3 May 2016),. - EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18
CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
Moreover, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not bar the national courts from relying on expert opinions drawn up by specialised bodies to resolve the disputes before them when this is required by the nature of the issues under consideration (see Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 61, 3 May 2016, and Devinar v. Slovenia, no. 28621/15, § 47, 22 May 2018). - EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 17378/20
RIELA v. ITALY
The mere fact that an expert is employed in a public medical institution does not in itself justify a fear that the expert will be unable to act neutrally and impartially (see, in the context of Article 6 of the Convention, Hamzagic v. Croatia, no. 68437/13, § 46, 9 December 2021, and Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 62, 3 May 2016).
- EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 44598/19
R.A. v. NORWAY
In particular, regard must be had to such factors as the expert's procedural position and role in the relevant proceedings (see Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 31930/04, § 47, 5 July 2007, and Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 51, 3 May 2016 with further references). - EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 77039/12
TEST-ACHATS c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 38597/14
KABAR v. TURKEY
In its case-law the Court has recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court-appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms inherent in the concept of a fair trial (see Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, §§ 30-35, Series A no. 92, and Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 51, 3 May 2016). - EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 24315/13
TABAK v. CROATIA
The Court's assessment 60. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees a right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial "tribunal" and does not expressly require that an expert heard by that tribunal fulfils the same requirements (see Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 31930/04, § 47, 5 July 2007, and Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 51, 3 May 2016). - EGMR, 21.12.2021 - 12889/19
GROZA v. ROMANIA
The Court reiterates the general principles set out in its case-law for assessing the fairness of proceedings, including questions concerning the admissibility of evidence, the equality of arms and the courts" obligation to give reasons for their decisions (see Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, §§ 19 and 24, 27 March 2008; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 98, ECHR 2009; Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, §§ 47 and 49, 3 May 2016; Rachita v. Romania, no. 15987/09, §§ 51 and 57, 17 May 2016; Devinar v. Slovenia, no. 28621/15, § 53, 22 May 2018; López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. - EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 40865/05
MURAT AKIN c. TURQUIE
Elle rappelle encore que la Convention ne réglemente pas le régime des preuves en tant que tel et que, lorsqu'un expert a été désigné, l'essentiel est que l'intéressé ait la possibilité de participer de manière adéquate à la procédure (Letincic c. Croatie, no 7183/11, §§ 46-51, 3 mai 2016). - EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 57597/17
M.U. v. CROATIA
The general principles relevant to the present case have been summarised in Letincic v. Croatia (no. 7183/11, §§ 46-51, 3 May 2016, with further references therein). - EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 72109/14
AKULOVA v. RUSSIA