Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BILGEN v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BILGEN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  KAMENOS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017; and Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, § 88, 31 October 2017), removed from an administrative position without the termination of their duties as a judge (see Baka, §§ 34 and 107-11, and Denisov, §§ 25, 47-48 and 54, both cited above) or suspended from judicial office (see Paluda v. Slovakia, no. 33392/12, § 34, 23 May 2017) or otherwise subjected to a disciplinary sanction (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 119-20).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy (cited above, § 103) as well as the right of a prisoner to confidential face-to-face conversation with a lawyer outside the context of a criminal trial (see Altay v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 11236/09, § 68, 9 April 2019), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy (cited above, § 103) as well as the right of a prisoner to confidential face-to-face conversation with a lawyer outside the context of a criminal trial (see Altay v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 11236/09, § 68, 9 April 2019), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).

 
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

  ALI RIZA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  Thus, having regard to the nature of the violation found in the present case and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 12, 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable (see, mutatis mutandis, Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, § 249, 28 January 2020).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  In addition, only an institution that has full jurisdiction and satisfies a number of requirements, such as independence from the executive and also from the parties, merits the designation "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, § 38, Series A no. 296-B; Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, § 52, 9 July 2013; and, most recently, Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson, cited above, § 218).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  STURUA v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017; and Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, § 88, 31 October 2017), removed from an administrative position without the termination of their duties as a judge (see Baka, §§ 34 and 107-11, and Denisov, §§ 25, 47-48 and 54, both cited above) or suspended from judicial office (see Paluda v. Slovakia, no. 33392/12, § 34, 23 May 2017) or otherwise subjected to a disciplinary sanction (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 119-20).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy (cited above, § 103) as well as the right of a prisoner to confidential face-to-face conversation with a lawyer outside the context of a criminal trial (see Altay v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 11236/09, § 68, 9 April 2019), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 8453/04

  Rechtssache B. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  Furthermore, in Bayer v. Germany (no. 8453/04, 16 July 2009), which concerned the removal from office of a State-employed bailiff following disciplinary proceedings, the Court held that disputes about "salaries, allowances or similar entitlements" were only non-exhaustive examples of "ordinary labour disputes" to which Article 6 should in principle apply under the Vilho Eskelinen test (ibid., § 38; see also Regner, cited above, § 108).
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52531/07

  ZALLI v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  It has also been applied to employment disputes involving civil servants who had lost a remote-area allowance which had been added to their salaries as a bonus (see Vilho Eskelinen, cited above, §§ 40 and 41) or who had been transferred to another office or post against their will, resulting in a decrease in salary (see Zalli v. Albania (dec.), no. 52531/07, 8 February 2011, and Ohneberg, cited above).
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 5114/09

  KULYKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017; and Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, § 88, 31 October 2017), removed from an administrative position without the termination of their duties as a judge (see Baka, §§ 34 and 107-11, and Denisov, §§ 25, 47-48 and 54, both cited above) or suspended from judicial office (see Paluda v. Slovakia, no. 33392/12, § 34, 23 May 2017) or otherwise subjected to a disciplinary sanction (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 119-20).
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 11236/09

  ALTAY v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

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

  König ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 20999/04

  ÖZPINAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 965/12

  GUZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 12778/17

  Türkei verurteilt: Haft für Verfassungsrichter war illegal
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 66448/17

  EGMR verurteilt Türkei: Haft von Ex-Richter verstößt gegen Menschenrechte
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 3964/05

  APAY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EuGH, 06.10.2021 - C-487/19

  Nicht einvernehmliche Versetzungen von Richtern an andere Gerichte oder zwischen …

  Er hat insoweit insbesondere die Bedeutung hervorgehoben, die Verfahrensgarantien und die Möglichkeit der gerichtlichen Überprüfung von Entscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit der Laufbahn von Richtern, einschließlich ihres Status, vor allem von sie betreffenden Entscheidungen über nicht einvernehmliche Versetzungen haben, um zu gewährleisten, dass die Unabhängigkeit der Richter nicht durch unzulässige äußere Einflüsse beeinträchtigt wird (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 9. März 2021, Bilgen/Türkei, CE:ECHR:2021:0309JUD000157107, § 63 und 96).
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 37013/15

  G?LC? AND OTHERS v. T?RKIYE

  Accordingly, the Government argued that unlike in Bilgen v. Turkey (no. 1571/07, 9 March 2021), the applicants' loyalty to the rule of law and democracy were doubtful and that therefore the exclusion from access to court was justified.
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18

  GRZEDA v. POLAND

  Pour constater que ce droit est « défendable ", « la Cour doit seulement déterminer si la thèse [du requérant] présente un degré suffisant de sérieux, et non s'il aurait obtenu gain de cause dans l'hypothèse où il aurait eu accès à un tribunal'(paragraphe 268, citant Neves e Silva c. Portugal, 27 avril 1989, § 37, Série A no 153-A, et Bilgen c. Turquie, no 1571/07, § 53, 9 mars 2021 ; voir aussi, dans la jurisprudence de la Grande Chambre, Athanassoglou et autres c. Suisse [GC], no 27644/95, § 48, CEDH 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18

  BRODA ET BOJARA c. POLOGNE

  Il serait illusoire de croire que les magistrats peuvent faire respecter l'État de droit et donner effet au principe de prééminence du droit s'ils sont privés par le droit interne de la protection de la Convention sur les questions touchant directement à leur indépendance et à leur impartialité (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kövesi, précité, § 124, et Bilgen c. Turquie, no 1571/07, § 79, 9 mars 2021).

  S'il existe des arrêts qui mettent en exergue l'absence de raisons propres à justifier l'exclusion de l'accès des juges à un tribunal (Kövesi c. Roumanie, no 3594/19, § 124, 5 mai 2020, Eminagaoglu c. Turquie, no 76521/12, § 78, 9 mars 2021 et Bilgen c. Turquie, no 1571/07, § 79, 9 mars 2021), il existe aussi une jurisprudence allant dans le sens opposé.

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 54699/14

  KARTAL v. TÜRKIYE

  The Court further reiterates that it held in its judgments in Bilgen v. Turkey (no. 1571/07, 9 March 2021) and Eminagaoglu v. Turkey (no. 76521/12, 9 March 2021) that the HSYK could not be regarded as a "tribunal" on account of, inter alia, the shortcomings in the procedure before it (see the above-cited cases of Bilgen, § 74, and Eminagaoglu, §§ 99-100).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 73532/16

  SÖZEN c. TÜRKIYE

  Il serait illusoire de croire que les juges peuvent faire respecter l'état de droit et donner effet à la Convention s'ils sont privés par le droit interne des garanties posées par la Convention sur les questions touchant directement à leur indépendance et à leur impartialité (Bilgen c. Turquie, no 1571/07, § 79, 9 mars 2021, Broda et Bojara, précité, § 120, et Grzeda, précité, § 264).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  It reiterates that it must be particularly attentive to the protection of members of the judiciary against measures that can threaten their judicial independence and autonomy, given the prominent place that the judiciary occupies among State organs in a democratic society and the importance attached to the separation of powers and to the necessity of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 196, 6 November 2018, with further references; Bilgen v. Turkey, no. 1571/07, § 58, 9 March 2021; and Grzeda, cited above, § 302).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 24269/18

  STYLIANIDIS v. CYPRUS

  49868/19 and 57511/19, §§ 220-28, 8 November 2021; Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, §§ 44-59, 22 July 2021; Eminagaoglu v. Turkey, no. 76521/12, §§ 59-63, 9 March 2021; and Bilgen v. Turkey, no. 1571/07, §§ 47-52 and §§ 65-68, 9 March 2021).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 28003/15

  VANCHEV c. BULGARIE

  Eu égard aux fonctions de procureur occupées par l'intéressé, l'existence d'un tel droit ne peut pas non plus être déduite des principes reconnus par le droit international relatifs à l'indépendance et à l'inamovibilité des magistrats, ces exigences n'étant pas aussi catégoriques pour le ministère public, souvent structuré de manière hiérarchique, que pour les juges (voir l'extrait du rapport de la Commission de Venise cité au paragraphe 24 ci-dessus et comparer avec Bilgen c.Turquie, no 1571/07, §§ 57-63, 9 mars 2021, et Ivanov c. Bulgarie [comité], § 47, no 36946/12, 8 mars 2022).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 25240/20

  GYULUMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  It would be a fallacy to assume that judges can uphold the rule of law and give effect to the Convention if domestic law deprives them of the guarantees of the Articles of the Convention on matters directly touching their individual independence and impartiality (see Grzeda, cited above, § 264; Bilgen v. Turkey, no. 1571/07, § 79, 9 March 2021; and Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, § 66, 22 July 2021).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 79089/13

  LOQUIFER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 39247/14

  DAVCHEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 19371/22

  STOIANOGLO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 49647/14

  SAKAOGLU c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 11423/19

  GUMENYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 66292/14

  PENGEZOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 18952/18

  GLOVELI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 2203/23 (anhängig)

  GRZEGORCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR - 36862/23 (anhängig)

  KONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 47711/18

  KARADAG c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 46376/17

  TURGUT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 27316/16 (anhängig)

  TOSUN v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 59262/15 (anhängig)

  BENLI v. TÜRKIYE and 6 other applications
• EGMR - 42109/22 (anhängig)

  KAYA v. TÜRKIYE