Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,16401
EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84 (https://dejure.org/1992,16401)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.02.1992 - 10802/84 (https://dejure.org/1992,16401)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Februar 1992 - 10802/84 (https://dejure.org/1992,16401)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,16401) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PFEIFER AND PLANKL v. AUSTRIA

    Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE

    Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Violation de l'Art. 8 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 1992, 1873
  • Serie A Nr. 227
 
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 ... (49)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

    Oberschlick ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
    Its non-observance means that Mr Pfeifer was tried by a court whose impartiality was recognised by national law itself to be open to doubt (see, mutatis mutandis, the Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 23, para. 50).

    According to the Court's case-law, the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - insofar as it is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, as the most recent authority, the Oberschlick judgment cited above, Series A no. 204, p. 23, para. 51).

  • EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

    PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
    In this respect, it is unnecessary to define the precise role played by the judges in question during the investigative stage (see, mutatis mutandis, the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, p. 16, para. 31).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
    The Commission asked the Court to declare the objection inadmissible and referred to the dissenting opinions in certain recent cases (see, inter alia, the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, pp. 22-24, opinions of Judges Martens and Morenilla).
  • EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

    PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
    With reference to its jurisdiction to consider the objection, the Court refers to its well-established case-law (as first stated in the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 14, pp. 27-30, paras. 44-52); for the reasons given in the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991 (Series A no. 222, p. 19, para. 39), it does not consider it should depart therefrom.
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
    In the case of Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, the Court held that it was not "necessary in a democratic society" to stop private letters "calculated to hold the authorities up to contempt" or containing "material deliberately calculated to hold the prison authorities up to contempt" (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 26 and 38, paras. 64 and 99 (c)).
  • EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …

    The Court reiterates that waiver of the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Convention must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, mutatis mutandis , Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, p. 16, § 37).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

    D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    La jurisprudence de la Cour exige néanmoins que la renonciation à un droit garanti par la Convention - pour autant qu'elle soit licite - se trouve établie de manière non équivoque, qu'elle ait lieu en connaissance de cause, c'est-à-dire sur la base d'un consentement éclairé (Pfeifer et Plankl c. Autriche, 25 février 1992, §§ 37-38, série A no 227) et qu'elle soit effectuée sans contrainte (Deweer c. Belgique, 27 février 1980, § 51, série A no 35).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 17358/90

    BULUT v. AUSTRIA

    Contrary to what occurred in the case of Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria (judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, paras. 35-39), in which the Court took the view that the waiver was invalid, the offer of waiver in the present case, as the record of the trial shows, was accepted by experienced legal counsel in an unequivocal manner.

    However, if the Chamber is of the opinion that the right in issue is one which the accused may waive (as, in a comparable situation, the Court held in substance in the case of Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, para. 37) and that in the instant case there was indeed a waiver of this right, in circumstances attended by the necessary safeguards, all those parts of the reasoning which go to prove in the instant case that impartiality was not in question either subjectively or objectively speaking seem to me to be unnecessary, even though they are in principle relevant.

    In the Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria case (judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, paras. 35-39) the Court, without explanation, left this question open, however.

    [12] Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp.

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