Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91, 25/1994/472/553   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1995,14676
EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91, 25/1994/472/553 (https://dejure.org/1995,14676)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.09.1995 - 18160/91, 25/1994/472/553 (https://dejure.org/1995,14676)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. September 1995 - 18160/91, 25/1994/472/553 (https://dejure.org/1995,14676)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,14676) 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

    DIENNET v. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 (publicly) No violation of Art. 6-1 (impartiality) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DIENNET c. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 6-1 (publiquement) Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 (impartialité) Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 325-A
 
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 ... (127)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    The Government and the Commission referred to the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, according to which "... it cannot be stated as a general rule resulting from the obligation to be impartial that a superior court which sets aside an administrative or judicial decision is bound to send the case back to a different jurisdictional authority or to a differently composed branch of that authority" (Series A no. 13, p. 40, para. 97).

    They refer to the case of Ringeisen v. Austria (judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13), whose facts were, however, very different from those in the instant case.

  • EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

    PADOVANI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    The Court is thus extending - without explanation - to disciplinary bodies a trend that is fairly recent in its case-law (see the following judgments: Fey v. Austria of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, para. 30; Padovani v. Italy of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 27; Nortier v. the Netherlands of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, pp. 15-16, paras. 31-37, with my concurring opinion, pp. 18-19; and Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B) and is difficult enough as it is to reconcile with the earlier case-law as set forth in the Piersack, De Cubber, Hauschildt and Thorgeir Thorgeirson judgments previously cited.
  • EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

    NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    The Court is thus extending - without explanation - to disciplinary bodies a trend that is fairly recent in its case-law (see the following judgments: Fey v. Austria of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, para. 30; Padovani v. Italy of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 27; Nortier v. the Netherlands of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, pp. 15-16, paras. 31-37, with my concurring opinion, pp. 18-19; and Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B) and is difficult enough as it is to reconcile with the earlier case-law as set forth in the Piersack, De Cubber, Hauschildt and Thorgeir Thorgeirson judgments previously cited.
  • EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

    SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    The Court is thus extending - without explanation - to disciplinary bodies a trend that is fairly recent in its case-law (see the following judgments: Fey v. Austria of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, para. 30; Padovani v. Italy of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 27; Nortier v. the Netherlands of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, pp. 15-16, paras. 31-37, with my concurring opinion, pp. 18-19; and Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B) and is difficult enough as it is to reconcile with the earlier case-law as set forth in the Piersack, De Cubber, Hauschildt and Thorgeir Thorgeirson judgments previously cited.
  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    Such a conclusion is, in my opinion, contrary to the concept of "objective" impartiality combined with the "doctrine of appearances" that has been developed by the Court, in particular in the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982 (Series A no. 53, pp. 13-16, paras. 28-32), the De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984 (Series A no. 86, pp. 14-16, paras. 25-30) and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989 (Series A no. 154, pp. 21-22, paras. 46-52) (see Marc-André Eissen, Jurisprudence relative à l'article 6 (art. 6) de la Convention, European Court of Human Rights, 1985, pp.
  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    Such a conclusion is, in my opinion, contrary to the concept of "objective" impartiality combined with the "doctrine of appearances" that has been developed by the Court, in particular in the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982 (Series A no. 53, pp. 13-16, paras. 28-32), the De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984 (Series A no. 86, pp. 14-16, paras. 25-30) and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989 (Series A no. 154, pp. 21-22, paras. 46-52) (see Marc-André Eissen, Jurisprudence relative à l'article 6 (art. 6) de la Convention, European Court of Human Rights, 1985, pp.
  • EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

    PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    Such a conclusion is, in my opinion, contrary to the concept of "objective" impartiality combined with the "doctrine of appearances" that has been developed by the Court, in particular in the Piersack v. Belgium judgment of 1 October 1982 (Series A no. 53, pp. 13-16, paras. 28-32), the De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984 (Series A no. 86, pp. 14-16, paras. 25-30) and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989 (Series A no. 154, pp. 21-22, paras. 46-52) (see Marc-André Eissen, Jurisprudence relative à l'article 6 (art. 6) de la Convention, European Court of Human Rights, 1985, pp.
  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    The impartiality of the tribunal could well appear questionable and "this fear could be held to be objectively justified" (see the Hauschildt judgment previously cited, p. 21, paras. 48-49, and the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 23, para. 51).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

    FEY v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    The Court is thus extending - without explanation - to disciplinary bodies a trend that is fairly recent in its case-law (see the following judgments: Fey v. Austria of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, para. 30; Padovani v. Italy of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 27; Nortier v. the Netherlands of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, pp. 15-16, paras. 31-37, with my concurring opinion, pp. 18-19; and Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B) and is difficult enough as it is to reconcile with the earlier case-law as set forth in the Piersack, De Cubber, Hauschildt and Thorgeir Thorgeirson judgments previously cited.
  • EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

    LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
    1 (art. 6-1) (see, among other authorities, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-32, paras. 87-95; the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 19-23, paras. 41-51; and the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, paras. 25-29).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

    ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

    H. v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

    Sutter ./. Schweiz

  • EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 10211/12

    Sicherungsverwahrung für deutschen Sexualmörder gebilligt

    [...] Aus der Pflicht zur Unparteilichkeit kann kein allgemeiner Grundsatz abgeleitet werden, wonach eine Rechtsmittelinstanz, die eine Verwaltungs- oder eine Gerichtsentscheidung aufhebt, verpflichtet wäre, die Sache an eine andere Gerichtsbehörde oder ein anders zusammengesetztes Organ der betreffenden Behörde zurückzuverweisen (siehe Ringeisen./. Österreich, 16. Juli 1971, Rdnr. 97, Serie A Band. 13; und Diennet./. Frankreich, 26. September 1995, Rdnr. 38, Serie A Band 325 A).".
  • EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 10211/12

    Sexualstraftäter scheitert mit Beschwerde gegen nachträgliche

    Aus der Pflicht zur Unparteilichkeit kann kein allgemeiner Grundsatz abgeleitet werden, wonach eine Rechtsmittelinstanz, die eine Verwaltungs- oder eine Gerichtsentscheidung aufhebt, verpflichtet wäre, die Sache an eine andere Gerichtsbehörde oder ein anders zusammengesetztes Organ der betreffenden Behörde zurückzuverweisen (siehe Ringeisen./. Österreich, 16. Juli 1971, Rdnr. 97, Serie A Band. 13; und Diennet./. Frankreich, 26. September 1995, Rdnr. 38, Serie A Band 325-A).
  • EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

    GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

    30; see also the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, 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