Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY

  Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
• juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (32)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 40224/98

  DUDOVA et DUDA contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  Contesting the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Government referred to the Court's decision in the case of Dudová and Duda v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 40224/98, 30 January 2001)).

  This would, in our view, have been fully in accordance with the Court's case-law under Article 6 and more specifically with its case-law in cases concerning employment disputes between priests and churches regulated by ecclesiastical laws (see Dudová and Duda v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40224/98, 30 January 2001; Ahtinen v. Finland, no. 48907/99, §§ 39-43, 23 September 2008; Baudler v. Germany (dec.), no. 38254/04, 6 December 2011; Roland Reuter v. Germany (dec.), no. 39775/04, 6 December 2011; and Dietrich Reuter v. Germany (dec.), nos.

  A distinction must therefore be drawn between the applicant's case and cases involving decisions where the general principle of exclusion is based on the Court's agreement with the domestic courts' finding that the judicial determination of issues such as the continuation of a priest's or pastor's service within the church would be contrary to the principles of autonomy and independence of churches (see, for example, Dudová and Duda v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 40224/98, 30 January 2001), and Ahtinen v. Finland, (no. 48907/99, §§ 42-43, 23 September 2008).

• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 38254/04

  Andreas Baudler ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  Indeed, such claims do not give rise to a dispute over rights recognised by domestic law, so Article 6 § 1 is not applicable (see Dudová and Duda, cited above; Baudler v. Germany (dec.), no. 38254/04, 6 December 2011; Roland Reuter v. Germany (dec.), no. 39775/04, 6 December 2011; and Dietrich Reuter v. Germany (dec.), nos.

  This would, in our view, have been fully in accordance with the Court's case-law under Article 6 and more specifically with its case-law in cases concerning employment disputes between priests and churches regulated by ecclesiastical laws (see Dudová and Duda v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40224/98, 30 January 2001; Ahtinen v. Finland, no. 48907/99, §§ 39-43, 23 September 2008; Baudler v. Germany (dec.), no. 38254/04, 6 December 2011; Roland Reuter v. Germany (dec.), no. 39775/04, 6 December 2011; and Dietrich Reuter v. Germany (dec.), nos.

• EGMR - 19568/09 (anhängig)

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  32741/06 and 19568/09, 17 January 2012).

  32741/06 and 19568/09, 17 January 2012).

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X; and Boulois, cited above, § 91).

  Its guarantees extend only to rights which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X).

• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  This Court would need strong reasons to differ from the conclusions reached by the superior national courts by finding, contrary to their view, that there was arguably a right recognised by domestic law (see Roche, cited above, § 120; Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 95, ECHR 2006-XIV; and Boulois, cited above, § 91).

  Thus, the Court has found no violation of Article 6 in cases where the applicants' inability to pursue a civil action flowed from the applicable principles governing the substantive right of action in domestic law (see Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, ECHR 2006-XIV; and Z and Others, cited above).

• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  At the same time, one of us, Judge Kūris, voted against point 3 of the operative part of the judgment, because he found this aspect to be a fundamental element of inequality of treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 18136/02

  Art. 9 EMRK ;Kündigung kirchlicher Arbeitgeber;Loyalitätspflicht

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  Although the State has a wide margin of appreciation in these matters, a sufficient degree of protection nevertheless has to be afforded to the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Sindicatul "Păstorul cel Bun" v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, § 160, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Siebenhaar v. Germany, no. 18136/02, § 40, 3 February 2011).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  Chassagnou u.a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  At the same time, one of us, Judge Kūris, voted against point 3 of the operative part of the judgment, because he found this aspect to be a fundamental element of inequality of treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  Where there is a serious and genuine dispute as to the lawfulness of an interference with the exercise of a civil right, concerning either the very existence or the scope of the asserted civil right, Article 6 § 1 entitles the individual to have this question of domestic law determined by a tribunal (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 81, Series A no. 52; Z and Others, cited above, § 92; and Markovic and Others, cited above, § 98).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  We fail to see how this suggestion can be consistent with the requirements, as reiterated through the years in thousands of judgments and decisions of this Court, that the existence of the domestic remedies that have to be exhausted under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention must be "sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness" (see, among many other authorities, Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198; Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI; and Akdivar and Others [GC], no. 21893/93, § 66, ECHR 1998-II), and that a remedy which has to be exhausted must be "an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is... accessible,... capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and [offer] reasonable prospects of success" (see, among many other authorities, Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 68; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II; and Scoppola v. Italy [GC], no. 10249/03, § 71, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  Öffentlicher Dienst und civil rights
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  Hasan und Chaush ./. Bulgarien
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12

  Rechter Richtersturz nicht rechtens
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 77703/01

  Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya ./. Ukraine
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.11.2017 - C-414/16

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev unterliegen berufliche Anforderungen, die …

  {FN:60} EGMR, 1. Dezember 2015, Károly Nagy/Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2015:1201JUD005666509, § 15 des gemeinsamen abweichenden Votums der Richter Sajó, Vučinić und Kūris.
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

  BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE

  Le grief tiré du non-respect du principe de proportionnalité par un organe chargé d'appliquer la loi et exerçant une compétence liée est tout simplement indéfendable en droit national (comparer avec Károly Nagy c. Hongrie [GC], no 56665/09, §§ 60-63, 14 septembre 2017).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  KVASNEVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  The Court considers that the question to be answered in the present case is whether the applicants had a "right" which, for reasons that are at least arguable, could be said to be recognised under domestic law (see, for a recent authority, Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 64, ECHR 2017).

• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 9161/07

  DEMIR v. TURKEY

  Or l'on ne peut conclure à l'existence d'une « espérance légitime'lorsqu'il y a controverse sur la façon dont le droit interne doit être interprété et appliqué et que les arguments développés par le requérant à cet égard sont en définitive rejetés par les juridictions nationales (Kopecký, précité, § 50, Basa, précité, § 89 et sur l'interprétation de la législation interne, Károly Nagy c. Hongrie [GC], no 56665/09, § 62, 14 septembre 2017 et Nejdet Şahin et Perihan Şahin c. Turquie [GC], no 13279/05, §§ 49-50, 20 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 36675/07

  TOZKOPARAN v. TURKEY

  Or on ne peut conclure à l'existence d'une « espérance légitime'lorsqu'il y a controverse sur la façon dont le droit interne doit être interprété et appliqué et que les arguments développés par le requérant à cet égard sont en définitive rejetés par les juridictions nationales (Kopecký, précité, § 50, Basa, précité, § 89, et, sur l'interprétation de la législation interne, Károly Nagy c. Hongrie [GC], no 56665/09, § 62, 14 septembre 2017, et Nejdet Şahin et Perihan Şahin c. Turquie [GC], no 13279/05, §§ 49-50, 20 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 7428/17

  MUSTAFA ET MUSTAFOVA c. BULGARIE

  If there was a genuine and serious dispute about the existence of a right, a decision by the domestic courts that there was no such right does not remove, retrospectively, the arguability of the claim (see Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 63, 14 September 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.08.2020 - 32127/07

  GIRAUD AND SOLARI v. TURKEY

  In order to decide whether the "right" in question really has a basis in domestic law, the starting point must be the provisions of the relevant domestic law and their interpretation by the domestic courts (see, inter alia, Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 62, 14 September 2017).