Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERMEULEN v. BELGIUM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of art. 6-1 (adversarial trial) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed 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

  VERMEULEN c. BELGIQUE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 6-1 (procédure contradictoire) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée 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

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 29.06.1992 - 19075/91
• EKMR, 19.10.1993 - 19075/91
• EKMR, 11.10.1994 - 19075/91
• EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  2, as the case raised issues similar to those in the cases of Delcourt v. Belgium - in which he had acted as Agent and Counsel for the Government (judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 5, para. 7) - and Borgers v. Belgium, from which he had withdrawn (judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 25, para. 3).

  Furthermore, in the Borgers v. Belgium judgment (30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B) the Court based its finding of a breach of Article 6 para.

  The central argument underpinning the reasoning in that judgment lay in the consideration that "by recommending that an accused's appeal be allowed or dismissed, the official of the procureur général's department becomes objectively speaking his ally or his opponent" (Borgers judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, pp. 31-32, para. 26).

• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  Nevertheless, we see no reason to criticise legal systems which wish to maintain this practice, as doing so will not lead to better, real protection of parties" interests, especially since, as the Court pointed out in its judgment in the Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands case (27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, para. 32), the national authorities have a wider margin of appreciation under Article 6 (art. 6) in civil proceedings.

  There is nothing, in my opinion, to justify this greater degree of severity when, as the Court held in its judgment in the Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands case (27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, para. 32), the national authorities have a wider margin of appreciation under Article 6 (art. 6) in civil proceedings.

• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  2, as the case raised issues similar to those in the cases of Delcourt v. Belgium - in which he had acted as Agent and Counsel for the Government (judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 5, para. 7) - and Borgers v. Belgium, from which he had withdrawn (judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 25, para. 3).

 
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  It has reiterated that idea on several occasions (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 17, para. 36; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, p. 23, para. 40; and Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 25, para. 63).
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  It has reiterated that idea on several occasions (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 17, para. 36; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, p. 23, para. 40; and Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 25, para. 63).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  That right means in principle the opportunity for the parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed, even by an independent member of the national legal service, with a view to influencing the court's decision (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Ruiz-Mateos, previously cited, p. 25, para. 63; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, pp. 53-54, para. 80; and Kerojärvi v. Finland, 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, p. 16, para. 42).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  It has reiterated that idea on several occasions (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 17, para. 36; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, p. 23, para. 40; and Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 25, para. 63).
• EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90

  KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 19075/91

  That right means in principle the opportunity for the parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed, even by an independent member of the national legal service, with a view to influencing the court's decision (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Ruiz-Mateos, previously cited, p. 25, para. 63; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, pp. 53-54, para. 80; and Kerojärvi v. Finland, 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, p. 16, para. 42).

• BVerfG, 08.11.2022 - 2 BvR 2480/10

  Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend das Rechtsschutzsystem des Europäischen …

  Dafür ist wesentlich, dass die Beteiligten an einem gerichtlichen Verfahren nicht zu reinen Objekten herabgestuft werden, sondern über angemessene Mitwirkungsrechte verfügen ("Waffengleichheit"), wie zum Beispiel Rechte zur Stellungnahme oder zu eigenständigen Beweisangeboten (vgl. EGMR, Brandstetter v. Austria, Urteil vom 28. August 1991, Nr. 11170/84, § 41 ff.; Dombo Beheer B. V. v. Netherlands, Urteil vom 27. Oktober 1993, Nr. 14448/88, § 33; Vermeulen v. Belgium, Urteil vom 20. Februar 1996, Nr. 19075/91, §§ 28, 34;… vgl. Germelmann, Das rechtliche Gehör vor Gericht im europäischen Recht, 2014, S. 441).
• EGMR, 20.02.1996 - 15764/89

  LOBO MACHADO v. PORTUGAL

  Le 2 février 1995, 1e président, aux fins d'une bonne administration de la justice, a considéré qu'il y avait lieu d'entendre le même jour la présente affaire et l'affaire Vermeulen c. Belgique (58/1994/505/587).