Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DZHIDZHEVA-TRENDAFILOVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  In so far as the applicant complained, relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, of the manner in which the performance appraisal and promotion procedures had been carried out by the Supreme Judicial Council, the alleged lack of clear and transparent criteria in that respect, the Council's decision not to appoint her, and the alleged lack of effective remedies in that regard, the Court observes that neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the Convention or its Protocols guarantees, as such, a right to appointment or promotion in the civil service (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, §§ 48-49, Series A no. 104; Kosiek v. Germany, 28 August 1986, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 105; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 43, Series A no. 323; and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 40-41, ECHR 1999-VII), or the right to hold a public post related to administration of justice (see Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 29 June 2004).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  In principle, later case-law developments cannot remove, retrospectively, the arguability of the applicant's claim (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 89, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  It is true that, in the context of complaints about arbitrary interference with rights protected under several Convention provisions, the Court has accepted that, even though it has only limited power to review compliance with domestic law, it may draw appropriate conclusions under the Convention where it observes that the domestic courts have applied the law in a particular case manifestly erroneously or so as to reach arbitrary conclusions (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I; Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, §§ 70-74 and 84, 11 January 2007; Paduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, § 98, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, §§ 79, 97 and 98, ECHR 2002-VII; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 108, ECHR 2000-I; and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, 29 May 1997, §§ 59-63, Reports 1997-III).

 
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

  GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  In so far as the applicant complained, relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, of the manner in which the performance appraisal and promotion procedures had been carried out by the Supreme Judicial Council, the alleged lack of clear and transparent criteria in that respect, the Council's decision not to appoint her, and the alleged lack of effective remedies in that regard, the Court observes that neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the Convention or its Protocols guarantees, as such, a right to appointment or promotion in the civil service (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, §§ 48-49, Series A no. 104; Kosiek v. Germany, 28 August 1986, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 105; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 43, Series A no. 323; and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 40-41, ECHR 1999-VII), or the right to hold a public post related to administration of justice (see Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 29 June 2004).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  Article 6 § 1 does not in itself guarantee any particular content for "civil rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States (see, among other authorities, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9704/82

  KOSIEK c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  In so far as the applicant complained, relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, of the manner in which the performance appraisal and promotion procedures had been carried out by the Supreme Judicial Council, the alleged lack of clear and transparent criteria in that respect, the Council's decision not to appoint her, and the alleged lack of effective remedies in that regard, the Court observes that neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the Convention or its Protocols guarantees, as such, a right to appointment or promotion in the civil service (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, §§ 48-49, Series A no. 104; Kosiek v. Germany, 28 August 1986, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 105; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 43, Series A no. 323; and Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 40-41, ECHR 1999-VII), or the right to hold a public post related to administration of justice (see Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 29 June 2004).
• EKMR, 14.12.1978 - 7598/76

  KAPLAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  As for Article 13 of the Convention, it applies only to claims which fall within the scope of one of the substantive provisions of the Convention or its Protocols (see, among other authorities, Kaplan v. the United Kingdom, no. 7598/76, Commission's report of 17 July 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 21, pp.
• EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  McKENZIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  35-36, § 173; M. v. France, no. 9984/82, Commission decision of 17 October 1985, DR 44, p. 54; and McKenzie v. the United Kingdom, no. 22301/93, Commission decision of 1 December 1993, unreported).
• EKMR, 17.10.1985 - 9984/82

  M. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  35-36, § 173; M. v. France, no. 9984/82, Commission decision of 17 October 1985, DR 44, p. 54; and McKenzie v. the United Kingdom, no. 22301/93, Commission decision of 1 December 1993, unreported).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  KERN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  Its task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I, and Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 61, 24 February 2005).

• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 24269/18

  STYLIANIDIS v. CYPRUS

  The Court has accepted that the right to a lawful and fair promotion procedure could be considered as a recognised right in domestic law, at least arguably where the domestic courts had recognised its existence and had examined the relevant complaints of the applicants (see Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, § 43, 9 October 2012, Frezadou, cited above, § 28; and Gloveli, cited above, § 35).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 43800/12

  TSANOVA-GECHEVA c. BULGARIE

  En ce qui concerne tout d'abord l'existence d'un « droit ", la Cour rappelle que ni l'article 6, ni une autre disposition de la Convention ou de ses Protocoles ne garantissent le droit d'être promu ou d'occuper un emploi dans la fonction publique (voir Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 12628/09, § 43, 9 octobre 2012, et les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 24492/21

  OKTAY ALKAN v. TÜRKIYE

  In that connection, the Court has applied the Vilho Eskelinen criteria to all types of disputes concerning judges, including those relating to recruitment/appointment (see Juricic, §§ 52-57 and Gloveli, §§ 43-47, both cited above), career/promotion (see Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, 9 October 2012, and Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, §§ 85-87, 15 September 2015), transfer (see Tosti v. Italy (dec.).

 
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 18952/18

  GLOVELI v. GEORGIA

  In such circumstances, considering the relevant domestic legal framework, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that there was arguably a "right" recognised under Georgian law to a fair procedure in judicial competitions, including the right to be protected against arbitrary and discriminatory rejections (see Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek, cited above, §§ 229-30; Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, § 84, 15 September 2015; Juricic, cited above, § 52; Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, §§ 48-49, 9 October 2012; Kübler v. Germany, no. 32715/06, § 46, 13 January 2011; and Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, § 62, 20 October 2009).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 36785/03

  TEL c. TURQUIE

  S'agissant de la question de l'applicabilité en l'espèce de l'article 6 de la Convention, la Cour se réfère aux critères énoncés en la matière dans son arrêt de principe Vilho Eskelinen et autres c. Finlande ([GC], no 63235/00, § 41, CEDH 2007-II) et rappelle que ceux-ci ont été appliqués à tous les types de litiges concernant des fonctionnaires, y compris ceux relatifs au recrutement ou à la nomination (Juricic c. Croatie, no 58222/09, 26 juillet 2011), à la carrière ou à la promotion (Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 12628/09, 9 octobre 2012) ainsi qu'à la cessation de service (Olujic c. Croatie, no 22330/05, 5 février 2009).
• EGMR - 82673/17 (anhängig)

  MARTYNYUK v. UKRAINE

  Is Article 6 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the court proceedings in the present case (see Juricic v.Croatia, no. 58222/09, §§ 51-58, 26 July 2011; Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, §§ 42-50, 9 October 2012; Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, §§ 83-87, 15 September 2015; Doli?„ska - Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos.
• EGMR - 40066/18 (anhängig)

  BREGEY v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

  With regard to the court proceedings initiated by the applicants concerning their participation in the competition to the Supreme Court, was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable (see Juricic v.Croatia, no. 58222/09, §§ 51-58, 26 July 2011; Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), §§ 43-50, no. 12628/09, 9 October 2012; and Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2016)?.
• EGMR - 40283/19 (anhängig)

  AZEVEDO DA SILVA BARBOSA v. PORTUGAL

  Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings concerning the applicant's rating following her professional appraisal and consequent placement in a lower court? In particular, did the proceedings concern a dispute over an arguable civil right under domestic law (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 44, 25 September 2018; and Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria, no. 12628/09, §§ 38-40, 9 October 2012)?.
• EGMR, 16.12.2020 - 2468/20

  BORG BUSUTTIL v. MALTA

  For the purposes of the present case the Court is ready to proceed on the basis that the applicant can be said to have a civil right at law (see Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, §§ 105 et seq., 19 September 2017 and Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09 § 50, 9 October 2012) and that, since the Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-II) test has not been met (in particular, the applicant having had access to judicial review proceedings) Article 6 in its civil head is applicable to the procedure regarding the applicant's demotion.