Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten morgen, 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten morgen, 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EKMR, 06.05.1978 | EKMR, 19.03.1981 | EKMR, 19.03.1981

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77, 7878/77   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1984,8464
EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1984,8464)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.1984 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1984,8464)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 1984 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1984,8464)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1984,8464) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 34, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2 MRK
    Preliminary objection partially allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-b Violation of Art. 6-3-c Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CAMPBELL ET FELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Art. 34, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2 MRK
    Exception préliminaire partiellement retenue (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 6-3-b Violation de l'art. 6-3-c Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 13 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
  • juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

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 ... (289)Zitiert selbst (22)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    The Court examined analogous pleas by the United Kingdom Government in its Silver and Others judgment of 25 March 1983 (Series A no. 61, p. 31, para. 79); it sees no cause on the present occasion to depart from the ruling which it then gave.

    1 (art. 6-1); it is therefore not possible to speak of a "solution", even partial, "of the matter" (see, mutatis mutandis, Rule 47 para. 2 of the Rules of Court and the above-mentioned Silver and Others judgment, Series A no. 61, pp. 31-32, para. 81).

    2 (art. 8-2) (Series A no. 61, pp. 38-39, para. 99).

    2 (art. 8-2) (Series A no. 61, pp. 38-39, para. 99).

    1 (art. 6-1) (see paragraphs 107 and 113 above), there is no need to examine them under Article 13 (art. 13); this is because the requirements of the latter Article (art. 13) are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of the former (see, as the most recent authority, the above-mentioned Silver and Others judgment, Series A no. 61, p. 41, para. 110).

    For the reasons given in its above-mentioned Silver and Others judgment (Series A no. 61, pp. 42-44, paras. 114-118), the Court finds that this must be so.

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    However, the guarantee of a fair hearing, which is the aim of Article 6 (art. 6), is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36).

    It is true that the Court has recognised that to a certain extent the right of access to the courts secured by Article 6 (art. 6) may be subject to limitations permitted by implication (see the above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A no. 18, pp. 18-19, para. 38).

    1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in its above-mentioned Golder judgment (Series A no. 18).

    Moreover, as the Court pointed out in its above-mentioned Golder judgment (Series A no. 18, p. 13, para. 26), hindrance, even of a temporary character, may contravene the Convention.

  • EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    In determining whether a body can be considered to be "independent" - notably of the executive and of the parties to the case (see, inter alia, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 24, para. 55) -, the Court has had regard to the manner of appointment of its members and the duration of their term of office (ibid., pp. 24-25, para. 57), the existence of guarantees against outside pressures (see the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 13, para. 27) and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence (see the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 17, para. 31).

    The personal impartiality of members of a body covered by Article 6 (art. 6) is to be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 25, para. 58).

    The object of the proceedings before the Board was clearly disciplinary and not the determination of "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 (art. 6) (see in this connection my dissenting opinion in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, Series A no. 43, pages 43-44).

  • EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    In determining whether a body can be considered to be "independent" - notably of the executive and of the parties to the case (see, inter alia, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 24, para. 55) -, the Court has had regard to the manner of appointment of its members and the duration of their term of office (ibid., pp. 24-25, para. 57), the existence of guarantees against outside pressures (see the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 13, para. 27) and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence (see the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 17, para. 31).

    This requirement of Article 6 (art. 6) would not be satisfied if prisoners were reasonably entitled, on account of the frequent contacts between a Board and the authorities, to think that the former was dependent on the latter (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Piersack judgment, Series A no. 53, p. 15, para. 30 in fine); however, the Court does not consider that the mere fact of these contacts, which exist also with the prisoners themselves, could justify such an impression.

    However, it is not possible to confine oneself to a purely subjective test: in this area, appearances may be of a certain importance and account must be taken of questions of internal organisation (see the above-mentioned Piersack judgment, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, para. 30).

  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    80-82), the Court, after drawing attention to the "autonomy" of the notion of "criminal charge" as conceived of under Article 6 (art. 6), set forth the following principles which it re-affirmed in its Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984 (Series A no. 73, pp. 17-18, paras. 48-50).

    It is therefore necessary to turn to the last criterion stated in the above-mentioned Engel and Others judgment (ibid., p. 35, para. 82) and in the above-mentioned Öztürk judgment (Series A no. 73, p. 18, para. 50), namely the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that Mr. Campbell risked incurring.

    Nevertheless, applying the criteria stated in its Engel and Others judgment and in its judgment of 21 February 1984 in the Oztürk case (Series A no. 73, pp. 17-18, paras. 48-50), the Court has reached the conclusion that Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable to the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Campbell.

  • EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

    Sutter ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    Bearing in mind the terms of Article 17 (art. 17) and the importance of the principle of publication (see, inter alia, the Sutter judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 12, para. 26), the Court does not consider that that principle may be regarded as subject to an implied limitation as suggested by the Government.

    1 (art. 6-1) in this context, namely to ensure scrutiny of the judiciary by the public with a view to safeguarding the right to a fair trial (see the Pretto and Others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, pp. 11-13, paras. 21 and 26-27, and the above-mentioned Sutter judgment, Series A no. 74, pp. 12 and 14, paras. 26 and 33).

  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    The existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain before there can be an obligation to exhaust it (see the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, p. 34, para. 62, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 18, para. 32, and, mutatis mutandis, the Van Droogenbroeck judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, para. 54).

    Like the Commission, the Court considers this question to be devoid of interest for the decision in the particular case (see the above-mentioned Deweer judgment, Series A no. 35, p. 24, para. 47).

  • EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 7878/77

    FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    (Application no. 7819/77; 7878/77).

    The case originated in two applications (nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission in 1977 by Mr. John Joseph Campbell and Father Patrick Fell under Article 25 (art. 25).

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    Since the applicants have not pursued this claim before the Court, there is no necessity to examine it (see, mutatis mutandis, the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, pp.
  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    In determining whether a body can be considered to be "independent" - notably of the executive and of the parties to the case (see, inter alia, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 24, para. 55) -, the Court has had regard to the manner of appointment of its members and the duration of their term of office (ibid., pp. 24-25, para. 57), the existence of guarantees against outside pressures (see the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 13, para. 27) and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence (see the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 17, para. 31).
  • EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

    Pakelli ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
  • EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 5947/72
  • EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

    Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
  • EGMR, 06.02.1981 - 6289/73
  • EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75
  • EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 7299/75
  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76
  • EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 40575/10

    Claudia Pechstein scheitert mit Klage gegen den Sportgerichtshof Cas

    Um festzustellen, ob ein Gericht "unabhängig" ist, muss der Gerichtshof "(....) die Art und Weise der Ernennung und die Dauer der Amtszeit der Mitglieder (...), das Bestehen von Garantien gegen Druck von außen (...) und ob es den Anschein von Unabhängigkeit macht oder nicht (....)" berücksichtigen (Campbell und Feil gegen das Vereinigte Königreich, 28.06.1984, Ziff. 7819/77 und 7878/77, Rdnr. 78, Reihe A Nr. 80).
  • BVerfG, 22.03.2018 - 2 BvR 780/16

    Vorschriften zum Einsatz von Verwaltungsrichtern auf Zeit sind mit der Verfassung …

    Maßgeblich ist jeweils nicht die Regelung, sondern deren Anwendung in der Praxis (vgl. EGMR, Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 28. Juni 1984, Nr. 7819/77 u.a., Rn. 80; Morris v. The United Kingdom…, Urteil vom 26. Februar 2002, Nr. 38784/97, Rn. 68).

    Nach der Rechtsprechung des EGMR müssen die Richter ihr Amt zwar nicht auf Lebenszeit, aber grundsätzlich für eine bestimmte Dauer innehaben, die eine gewisse Stabilität gewährleisten muss (vgl. EGMR, Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 28. Juni 1984, Nr. 7819/77 u.a., Rn. 80; EGMR , Sramek v. Austria…, Urteil vom 22. Oktober 1984, Nr. 8790/79, Rn. 38).

    Eine Mindestamtszeit von drei Jahren ist grundsätzlich unbedenklich (EGMR, Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 28. Juni 1984, Nr. 7819/77 u.a., Rn. 80; EGMR , Sramek v. Austria…, Urteil vom 22. Oktober 1984, Nr. 8790/79, Rn. 26, 38); als absolute Untergrenze dürfte diese Zeitspanne indes nicht zu verstehen sein (…vgl. Müller, Richterliche Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit nach Art. 6 EMRK, 2015, S. 50 f.;… anders wohl Panzer, in: Schoch/Schneider/Bier, VwGO, § 15 Rn. 9, § 17 Rn. 3 ).

  • BVerfG, 08.11.2022 - 2 BvR 2480/10

    Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend das Rechtsschutzsystem des Europäischen …

    Rn. 150 (b) Im Rahmen der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention ist anerkannt, dass die Richter unabsetzbar sein und für eine gewisse Mindestdauer im Amt verbleiben müssen, wobei für Richter, die ohne Vergütung tätig werden, eine Amtszeit von drei Jahren für angemessen erachtet wird (vgl. EGMR, Campbell u.a. v. United Kingdom, Urteil vom 28. Juni 1984, Nr. 7819/77, 7878/77, § 78 ff.).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 06.05.1978 - 7819/77, 7878/77   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1978,6605
EKMR, 06.05.1978 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1978,6605)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 06.05.1978 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1978,6605)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Mai 1978 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1978,6605)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1978,6605) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EKMR

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 7878/77, 7819/77   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1981,7286
EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 7878/77, 7819/77 (https://dejure.org/1981,7286)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 19.03.1981 - 7878/77, 7819/77 (https://dejure.org/1981,7286)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 19. März 1981 - 7878/77, 7819/77 (https://dejure.org/1981,7286)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1981,7286) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (9)

  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    (Application no. 7819/77; 7878/77).

    The case originated in two applications (nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission in 1977 by Mr. John Joseph Campbell and Father Patrick Fell under Article 25 (art. 25).

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.12.2020 - C-824/18

    Generalanwalt Tanchev: Das polnische Gesetz, das eingeführt wurde, um die …

    {FN:61} Vgl. EGMR, Findlay/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nr. 22107/93), § 73, EGMR, Sramek/Österreich (Nr. 8790/79), § 42, EGMR, Campbell und Fell/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nrn. 7819/77 und 7878/77), § 78, EGMR, Cooper/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nr. 48843/99), § 104, EGMR, Sacilor Lormines/Frankreich (Nr. 65411/01), § 63, und EGMR, Clarke/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nr. 23695/02).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

    ALI RIZA v. TURKEY

    The Government further relied on the Court's findings in Sramek v. Austria (no. 8790/79, §§ 37-38, 22 October 1984) and Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom (nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77, §§ 77-74, 28 June 1984).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 23614/08

    HENRYK URBAN AND RYSZARD URBAN v. POLAND

    It may be indicated here that in attempting to define more closely a certain minimum period which would guarantee professional stability the European Court of Human Rights found three years to be sufficient (judgment of the ECHR of 28 June 1984 in the case of Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77, and the judgment of the ECHR of 22 October 1984 in the case of Sramek v. Austria, no. 8790/79).
  • EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 39631/20

    TERGEK c. TÜRKIYE and 3 other applications

    7819/77 and 7878/77, § 69, 28 June 1984).
  • EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 49234/99

    POPESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Tout en admettant qu'il s'agit d'un recours qui est devenu disponible après la date de l'introduction de la requête, il le considère néanmoins comme un recours suffisant, accessible et effectif, au sens de l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention, dès lors que le requérant aurait pu l'exercer dans le laps de temps compris entre la date de l'introduction de sa requête et l'adoption par la Cour d'une décision sur la recevabilité de cette requête (Fell c. Royaume-Uni, no 7878/77, décision de la Commission du 19 mars 1981, Décisions et rapports (DR) 23, pp.
  • EGMR - 23614/08 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

    It may be indicated here that in attempting to define more closely a certain minimum period which would guarantee professional stability the European Court of Human Rights found three years to be sufficient (judgment of the ECHR of 28 June 1984 in the case of Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77 and the judgment of the ECHR of 22 October 1984 in the case of Sramek v. Austria, no. 8790/79).
  • EGMR - 10005/09 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

    It may be indicated here that in attempting to define more closely a certain minimum period which would guarantee professional stability the European Court of Human Rights found three years to be sufficient (judgment of the ECHR of 28 June 1984 in the case of Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77 and the judgment of the ECHR of 22 October 1984 in the case of Sramek v. Austria, no. 8790/79).
  • EGMR - 50845/08 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

    It may be indicated here that in attempting to define more closely a certain minimum period which would guarantee professional stability the European Court of Human Rights found three years to be sufficient (judgment of the ECHR of 28 June 1984 in the case of Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77 and the judgment of the ECHR of 22 October 1984 in the case of Sramek v. Austria, no. 8790/79).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EKMR

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 7819/77, 7878/77   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1981,8095
EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1981,8095)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 19.03.1981 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1981,8095)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 19. März 1981 - 7819/77, 7878/77 (https://dejure.org/1981,8095)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1981,8095) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EKMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht