Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RICHARD-DUBARRY contre la FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 34 MRK
  Partiellement recevable Partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RICHARD-DUBARRY v. FRANCE [Extracts]

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 34 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 53929/00

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

• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  GUISSET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  Similarly, prior to Guisset v. France (no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX), the Conseil d'Etat had held that proceedings against an authorising officer before the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court amounted to a criminal charge (CE, 30 October 1998, Lorenzi, Recueil Lebon, p. 374).

  The Government therefore submitted that, unlike the Belgian Court of Audit (see Muyldermans, cited above), or, for example, the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court, which determined criminal charges (see Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX), the French Court of Audit and regional audit offices could not, when auditing accounts, judge the failings of accountants in the exercise of their functions.

• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  The Government added, lastly, that in Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, §§ 66-67, ECHR 1999-VIII) the Court held that disputes concerning public servants who exercise sovereign power in their dealings with the authorities were excluded from the scope of application of Article 6 § 1 regardless of the stakes involved in the dispute, even if they are exclusively financial.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  The Court reiterates that, generally speaking, proceedings before the courts of audit fall within the scope of application of Article 6 § 1 (see Francesco Lombardo v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-B, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, ECHR 1999-V, and Logothetis v. Greece, no. 46352/99, 12 April 2001; for the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court, see Guisset, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 11519/85

  FRANCESCO LOMBARDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  The Court reiterates that, generally speaking, proceedings before the courts of audit fall within the scope of application of Article 6 § 1 (see Francesco Lombardo v. Italy, judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-B, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, ECHR 1999-V, and Logothetis v. Greece, no. 46352/99, 12 April 2001; for the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court, see Guisset, cited above).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, "Article 6 § 1 extends only to 'contestations' (disputes) over (civil) 'rights and obligations' which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not in itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) 'rights and obligations' in the substantive law of the Contracting States" (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, pp. 36-37, § 80, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 87, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  Accordingly, the courts could not be regarded as having dealt with litigation, that is, a dispute brought before the judge by one of the litigants (see Benthem v. the Netherlands, judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, pp. 14-15, § 32).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

  Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 53929/00

  As to whether the dispute concerns civil rights and obligations, the Court reiterates that this notion is an autonomous one that cannot be interpreted solely by reference to the domestic law of the respondent State (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII).