Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PENTTINEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The present case was not at all comparable to the case Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC] (no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), which concerned persons already employed as civil servants and changes in their civil service relationships, namely a salary dispute.
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The dispute may relate not only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise (see, inter alia, Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, § 22, Series A no. 279-B).

 
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85

  ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  Furthermore, "Article 6 § 1 extends to "contestations" (disputes) over (civil) "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective of whether they are also protected under the Convention" (see, inter alia, Editions Périscope v. France, 26 March 1992, § 35, Series A no. 234-B; and Zander v. Sweden, cited above).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  As to the first condition, the Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable only if there is a genuine and serious "dispute" (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 81, Series A no. 52) over "civil rights and obligations".
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, inter alia, Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A; and Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, inter alia, Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A; and Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B).

• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 32715/06

  Kübler ./. Deutschland

  Dezember 2007; Lombardi Vallauri ./. Italien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39128/05, Rdnr. 62, ECHR 2009-... [Auszüge]; und Penttinen ./. Finnland [Entsch.], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9125/07, 5. Januar 2010).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 43800/12

  TSANOVA-GECHEVA c. BULGARIE

  La Cour a cependant déjà admis, dans des circonstances similaires à celles de l'espèce, que le droit à une procédure de de recrutement ou de promotion légale et équitable (Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova, décision précitée, § 43, Fiume c. Italie, no 20774/05, § 35, 30 juin 2009, et Penttinen c. Finlande (déc.), no 9125/07, 5 janvier 2010) ou à un accès égal à l'emploi et à la fonction publique (Juricic c. Croatie, no 58222/09, § 52, 26 juillet 2011) pouvaient passer pour des droits reconnus, au moins de manière défendable, en droit interne, dans la mesure où les juridictions internes avaient reconnu leur existence et avaient examiné les moyens soulevés par les intéressés à cet égard.
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09

  JURICIC v. CROATIA

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 54 below) also applied to the right of access to public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, § 62, and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  MAJSKI v. CROATIA (No.2)

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 53 below) also applied to the right of access to a public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, loc. cit.; and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 2683/12

  FREZADOU v. GREECE

  The Court has, however, accepted, in circumstances similar to those of the present case, that the right to a lawful and fair promotion procedure (see Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova, cited above, § 43, Fiume, cited above, § 35, and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no 9125/07, 5 January 2010) or to equal participation in a competition for public office (Juricic, cited above, § 52) could be considered as recognised rights in domestic law, at least arguably where the domestic courts had recognised their existence and had examined the relevant complaints of the applicants (see Tsanova-Gecheva, cited above, § 84).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 58740/11

  F.G. v. GREECE

  The Court has however accepted, in circumstances similar to those of the present case, that the right to a lawful and fair promotion procedure (Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova, cited above, § 43, Fiume, cited above, § 35, and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no 9125/07, 5 January 2010) or to equal participation in a competition for public office (Juricic, cited above, § 52) could be considered as recognised rights in domestic law, at least arguably where the domestic courts had recognised their existence and had examined the relevant complaints of the applicants (Tsanova-Gecheva, cited above, § 84).