Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLYAKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLYAKH v. UKRAINE - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POLYAKH v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  The Government stressed that a democratic State was entitled to require civil servants to be loyal to the constitutional principles on which it was founded (citing Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 59, Series A no. 323) and to regulate the terms of employment of its civil servants.
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  The quality of parliamentary and judicial review of the legislative scheme is a particularly important factor in that respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 113-16, ECHR 2013 (extracts).
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  The State therefore had a legitimate interest in requiring of these servants a special bond of trust and loyalty (citing Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 65, ECHR 1999-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

  GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  Their length is not short in absolute terms and may raise an issue of compliance with Article 6 § 1 (compare Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, §§ 29-41, Series A no. 81; Trebovc v. Slovenia, no. 42863/02, §§ 15-17, 1 June 2006; Svetlana Orlova v. Russia, no. 4487/04, §§ 41, 50-52, 30 July 2009; and Mo?.a?¥ v. Slovakia, no. 27452/05, §§ 24 and 25, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 38162/07

  NAIDIN c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  In a number of cases the Court has found that lustration measures engaged the applicants" right to respect for their private life, as they affected their reputation and/or professional prospects (see Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, § 110, ECHR 2006-II (extracts); Sõro v. Estonia, no. 22588/08, § 56, 3 September 2015, Karajanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2229/15, §§ 70 and 71, 6 April 2017, Ivanovski, §§ 176-77; and Anchev, § 92; both cited above, and, in the context of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, Sidabras and D?¾iautas, cited above, §§ 49 and 50, and Naidin v. Romania, no. 38162/07, §§ 29-36, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  Comparing the measure imposed on the applicants to Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 21722/11, ECHR 2013), the Government considered that the criminal head of Article 6 did not apply.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  Even remedies normally considered "exceptional" or "extraordinary" could in some instances be assimilated to ordinary appeal proceedings (citing Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 47-49, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  The Court has held that an effective remedy must operate without excessive delay (see, for example, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 108, 10 September 2010, and Story and Others v. Malta, nos.
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  However, depending on the circumstances of a case, where the applicant has recourse to such remedies and the authorities exercise their discretion to open proceedings on the matter raised by the applicant, the applicant may be considered to have complied with the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, §§ 66-73, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  56854/13 and 2 others, § 80, 29 October 2015) and that, where an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 260, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19

  Streit um Justizreform: Polen verurteilt

  58812/15 and 4 others, § 160, 17 October 2019, and practising lawyers in Malek v. Austria, no. 60553/00, § 39, 12 June 2003, and Helmut Blum v. Austria, no. 33060/10, § 60, 5 April 2016.
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 36345/16

  L.B. v. HUNGARY

  Other factors to be taken into account in assessing the compatibility of a legislative scheme involving the imposition of restrictive measures in the absence of an individualised assessment of an individual's conduct is the severity of the measure involved and whether the legislative scheme is sufficiently narrowly tailored to address the pressing social need it seeks to address in a proportionate manner (see Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, § 293, 17 October 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  58812/15 and 4 others, 17 October 2019; and Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, 22 July 2021; compare also, outside the judicial context, Namazov v. Azerbaijan, no. 74354/13, 30 January 2020, and Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos.

 
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 70489/17

  ALGIRDAS BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Likewise, in Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, §§ 208 and 209, 17 October 2019), the Court found that the applicants - who had not merely been suspended, demoted or transferred to positions of lesser responsibility, but dismissed and excluded from the civil service altogether, losing all their remuneration with immediate effect - had suffered very serious consequences as regards both their capacity to establish and develop relationships with others and their social and professional reputation, and that this had affected them to a very significant degree.
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19

  THANZA v. ALBANIA

  58812/15 and 4 others, § 296, 17 October 2019).
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 38977/19

  SAMSIN v. UKRAINE

  The Government also referred to the Court's judgment in Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, § 333, 17 October 2019), where, at the time the judgment was delivered, the applicants' claims for reinstatement and lost wages had been pending before the domestic courts and the Court had rejected their claims for pecuniary damage, finding no reason to doubt that, following the Court's judgment, the domestic courts would be able to resume the examination of those cases and make appropriate awards in respect of the lost wages.
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 59063/17

  DUTU c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, en ce qui concerne les procédures de lustration, la Cour a examiné au cas par cas, toujours en application des critères Engel, si le volet pénal de l'article 6 de la Convention était applicable (voir, par exemple, Matyjeck c. Pologne (déc.), no 38184/03, §§ 48-59, 30 mai 2006, et Polyakh et autres c. Ukraine, nos 58812/15 et 4 autres, §§ 156-159, 17 octobre 2019).
• EGMR - 36452/20 (anhängig)

  KOLESNYCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  His membership was terminated with effect from April 2014 by operation of the Restoration of Trust in the Judiciary Act enacted the same month (see Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, § 79, 17 October 2019).
• EGMR - 35505/22 (anhängig)

  SAUSA v. ITALY

  Was the interference "necessary in a democratic society" and proportionate, taking into account its automatic application in the absence of an individualised assessment of the applicant's situation (see L.B. v. Hungary, cited above, § 124-25, with further references; see also, mutatis mutandis, Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, § 293, 17 October 2019)?.
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 14220/13

  LESHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  That policy was changed only in July 2014, a year and a half after the termination of the relevant proceedings and after considerable political upheaval in Ukraine (see Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, §§ 12-15, 17 October 2019).