Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A. v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  Furthermore, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  The outcome of the proceedings must, in principle, be directly decisive for the right in question (see among other authorities the following judgments: Acquaviva v. France, 21 November 1995, Series A no. 333-A, p. 14, § 46; Le Calvez v. France, 29 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, pp. 1899-900, § 56, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  The present case can be distinguished from the case of Nikula v. Finland (no. 31611/96, ECHR 2002-II) in which a criminal sanction, albeit a lenient one, was imposed on the applicant.

 
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  As the Court of Appeal is a judicial body with full jurisdiction before which a party has, as a rule, a right to an oral hearing, the Court considers that the right of appeal to that court is, in principle, sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Article 6 in a case like the present one (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, § 29, and, a contrario, Diennet v. France, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 15, § 34).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see the following judgments: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 21, § 47, and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, p. 17, § 44).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see the following judgments: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 21, § 47, and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, p. 17, § 44).
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  He refers to the Court's case-law H. v Belgium (judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B) and De Moor v. Belgium (judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 292-A).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 23.06.1994 - 16997/90

  DE MOOR c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  He refers to the Court's case-law H. v Belgium (judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B) and De Moor v. Belgium (judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 292-A).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  This position explains the usual restrictions on the conduct of members of the Bar (see Casado Coca v. Spain, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, p. 21, § 54).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

  PELEKI c. GRÈCE

  La Cour reconnaît donc que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention trouve à s'appliquer dans son volet civil non seulement quand le requérant fait l'objet d'une interdiction temporaire (Diennet c. France, arrêt du 26 septembre 1995, série A no 325-A, pp. 8 et 13, §§ 11 et 27) ou permanente d'exercer son métier (A c. Finlande (déc.), no 44998/98, 8 janvier 2004), mais aussi dans le cas de l'imposition d'une amende pécuniaire (Hurter c. Suisse (déc.), no 53146/99, 8 juillet 2004).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 42139/08

  BUTERLEVICIUTE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has previously held that the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 was applicable to proceedings concerning a temporary suspension of the right to practise one's profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 49, Series A no. 43), as well as proceedings in which the applicant risked expulsion from a professional association even when that would not have precluded him from practising his profession as such (see A. v. Finland (dec.), no. 44998/98, 8 January 2004).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 54540/16

  IBRAHIM TOKMAK c. TURQUIE

  Elle reconnaît donc que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention trouve à s'appliquer dans son volet civil notamment quand le requérant fait l'objet d'une interdiction temporaire (Diennet c. France, arrêt du 26 septembre 1995, §§ 11 et 27, série A no 325-A) ou permanente d'exercer son métier (A c. Finlande (déc.), no 44998/98, 8 janvier 2004).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 48909/14

  SEDAT DOGAN c. TURQUIE

  Elle reconnaît donc que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention trouve à s'appliquer dans son volet civil quand le requérant fait l'objet d'une interdiction temporaire (Diennet c. France, arrêt du 26 septembre 1995, §§ 11 et 27, série A no 325-A) ou permanente d'exercer son métier (A c. Finlande (déc.), no 44998/98, 8 janvier 2004).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 32985/12

  ERDOGAN v. TURKEY

  These principles have been applied with regard to several cases concerning proceedings before bar associations (see A. v. Finland (dec.), no. 44998/98, 8 January 2004, and Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, 19 February 2013).
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 24128/02

  NENKOV v. BULGARIA

  Remedies which are not directly accessible to the applicant and depend on the discretion of a public official or body cannot be seen as effective either (see, among other authorities, Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999; and A. v. Finland (dec.), no. 44998/98, 8 January 2004).