Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96, 33210/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,32003
EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96, 33210/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,32003)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.06.2000 - 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96, 33210/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,32003)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. Juni 2000 - 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96, 33210/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,32003)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,32003) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    COEME ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 14, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 6-1 à l'égard de M. Coeme (procès équitable) Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-2 et 6-3 Violation de l'art. 6-1 (tribunal "établi par la loi" Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14 Non-lieu à examiner le grief de MM. Mazy Stalport Hermanus et Javeau ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 14, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of Mr Coeme (fair hearing) Not necessary to examine Art. 6-2 and 6-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (tribunal "established by law") Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Not necessary to examine the complaint of Mr Mazy Mr Stalport Mr Hermanus ...

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 ... (182)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

    VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    The requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 (b) of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 (see, among other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and the Poitrimol v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, § 29).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and the Philis v. Greece (no. 2) judgment of 27 June 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1083, § 35).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

    Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards him the sum of BEF 300, 000 for costs and expenses before the Court of Cassation and the sum of BEF 460, 000 for his representation before the Commission and then the Court, which the applicant has proved that he incurred by producing a bill of costs (see, among other authorities, the Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland judgment of 13 July 1983, Series A no. 66, p. 14, § 36).
     
  • EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

    PUDAS c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    In view of the above decision in respect of Article 6 § 1, the Court considers it unnecessary to look at the case under Article 13 of the Convention; this is because the requirements of that provision are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, the Pudas v. Sweden judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, p. 17, § 43, and the Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 24, § 65).
  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public and above all, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, in the accused (see, among other authorities, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 48, and the Pullar v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 794, § 38).
  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    The requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 (b) of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 (see, among other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and the Poitrimol v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, § 29).
  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    The term "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether the situation of the suspect has been "substantially affected" (see the Hozee v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1100, § 43, and the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33, § 73).
  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

    BORGERS v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    Secondly, referring to the role traditionally played by the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, which the Court had had occasion to assess when dealing with the Delcourt, Borgers, Vermeulen and Van Orshoven cases (see the judgments in the cases of Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11; Borgers v. Belgium, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B; Vermeulen v. Belgium, 20 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Van Orshoven v. Belgium, 25 June 1997, Reports 1997-III), and particularly the traditional practice whereby the Principal Public Prosecutor's Office participated in drafting the court's judgments, they observed that the confusion between the respective roles of the Court of Cassation and the Principal Public Prosecutor's Office there was particularly striking.
  • EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

    FUNKE v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    The Court reiterates that the right not to give evidence against oneself, that is the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself, lies at the heart of the notion of fair trial (see the John Murray judgment, loc. cit., and the Funke v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p. 22, § 44; see also the Saunders v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp. 2064-65, §§ 68 and 71).
  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
    Secondly, referring to the role traditionally played by the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, which the Court had had occasion to assess when dealing with the Delcourt, Borgers, Vermeulen and Van Orshoven cases (see the judgments in the cases of Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11; Borgers v. Belgium, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B; Vermeulen v. Belgium, 20 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Van Orshoven v. Belgium, 25 June 1997, Reports 1997-III), and particularly the traditional practice whereby the Principal Public Prosecutor's Office participated in drafting the court's judgments, they observed that the confusion between the respective roles of the Court of Cassation and the Principal Public Prosecutor's Office there was particularly striking.
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

    BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  • EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

    WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • BVerfG, 22.03.2018 - 2 BvR 780/16

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

    a) Mit dem Erfordernis eines "auf Gesetz beruhenden Gerichts" soll sichergestellt werden, dass die Justizorganisation in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft nicht im Belieben der Exekutive steht, sondern durch Parlamentsgesetz geregelt wird (vgl. EGMR, Coëme and others v. Belgium, Urteil vom 22. Juni 2000, Nr. 32492/96 u.a., Rn. 99, 107 f.; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan…, Urteil vom 22. April 2010, Nr. 40984/07, Rn. 141).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

    XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

    The Court also reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee any right to have a case referred by a domestic court to another national or international authority for a preliminary ruling, including on the constitutionality of a legal provision (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 114, ECHR 2000-VII, and Renard and Others v. France (dec.), no. 3569/12, § 21, 25 August 2015).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.07.2017 - C-42/17

    M.A.S. und M.B. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Schutz der finanziellen …

    47 EGMR, 22. Juni 2000, CE:ECHR:2000:0622JUD003249296.

    50 EGMR, 22. Juni 2000, Coëme u. a./Belgien, CE:ECHR:2000:0622JUD003249296, Rn. 145.

    52 EGMR, 22. Juni 2000, Coëme u. a./Belgien, CE:ECHR:2000:0622JUD003249296, Rn. 145.

    53 EGMR, 22. Juni 2000, CE:ECHR:2000:0622JUD003249296.

    60 Vgl. insbesondere EGMR, 22. Juni 2000, Coëme u. a/Belgien, CE:ECHR:2000:0622JUD003249296, Rn. 149.

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