Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SMILJAN PERVAN v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  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, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  In order to establish whether the civil head of Article 6 is applicable in the present case, and, consequently, whether the applicant could rely on the guarantees of that Article, the Court must examine first whether she had a "right" which could arguably be said to be recognised under Croatian law and, secondly, whether that right was a "civil" one (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 40, ECHR 2007-II; and Juricic; cited above, § 52).
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 27791/06

  TOSTI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  As to the applicability of the civil limb of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, in principle, the same standards concerning the applicability of Article 6 in the employment disputes of civil servants are relevant to the proceedings concerning judges (see Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 32-43, 5 February 2009; Tosti v. Italy (dec.), no. 27791/06, 12 May 2009; Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, § 51-58, 26 July 2011; Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, §§ 118-123, 20 November 2012; and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 87-91, ECHR 2013).

 
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  As to the applicability of the civil limb of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, in principle, the same standards concerning the applicability of Article 6 in the employment disputes of civil servants are relevant to the proceedings concerning judges (see Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 32-43, 5 February 2009; Tosti v. Italy (dec.), no. 27791/06, 12 May 2009; Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, § 51-58, 26 July 2011; Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, §§ 118-123, 20 November 2012; and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 87-91, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  As to the applicability of the civil limb of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, in principle, the same standards concerning the applicability of Article 6 in the employment disputes of civil servants are relevant to the proceedings concerning judges (see Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 32-43, 5 February 2009; Tosti v. Italy (dec.), no. 27791/06, 12 May 2009; Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, § 51-58, 26 July 2011; Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, §§ 118-123, 20 November 2012; and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 87-91, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  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, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  The starting point must be the provisions of the relevant domestic law and their interpretation by the domestic courts (see Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A).