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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (29)

• 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, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  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, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12

  Rechter Richtersturz nicht rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  As Article 6 of the Convention does not, in our view, apply, Article 14 of the Convention cannot be invoked either (see Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, Haas v. the Netherlands, no. 36983/97, § 45, ECHR 2004-I, and Baka v. Hungary, no. 20261/12, § 117, 27 May 2014).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  At the same time, one of us, Judge Kuris, 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, 14.06.2007 - 77703/01

  SVYATO-MYKHAYLIVSKA PARAFIYA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  Respect for the autonomy of religious communities precludes any discretionary power on the part of the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, §§ 62 and 78, ECHR 2000-XI), to oblige a religious community to admit or exclude an individual or to entrust someone with a particular religious duty (see Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine, no. 77703/01, § 146, 14 June 2007), or to act as an arbiter between religious communities (see Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun", cited above, § 165).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94

  REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  33-34, § 9; Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-III; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  It will be for the respondent Government to demonstrate, firstly, that a civil-servant applicant does not have a right of access to a court under national law and, secondly, that the exclusion of the rights under Article 6 for the civil servant is justified" (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  33-34, § 9; Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-III; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  At the same time, one of us, Judge Kuris, 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, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 18136/02

  Kündigung einer bei der evangelischen Kirche angestellten Kindergärtnerin wegen …
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.11.2017 - C-414/16

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev unterliegen berufliche Anforderungen, die …

  60 EGMR, 1. Dezember 2015, Károly Nagy/Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2015:1201JUD005666509, § 15 des gemeinsamen abweichenden Votums der Richter Sajó, Vucinic und K?«ris.
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

  CAMELIA 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, 15.10.2019 - 9161/07

  DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  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 ?žahin et Perihan ?žahin c. Turquie [GC], no 13279/05, §§ 49-50, 20 octobre 2011).
• 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, 11.02.2020 - 36675/07

  TOZKOPARAN c. TURQUIE

  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 Sahin et Perihan Sahin c. Turquie [GC], no 13279/05, §§ 49-50, 20 octobre 2011).