Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KÁROLY NAGY c. HONGRIE
Irrecevable (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae) (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
Inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Károly Nagy v. Hungary
[12.10.2016]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09
- EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
Papierfundstellen
- EuZW 2018, 461
- NZA 2018, 643
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (27)
- EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
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, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X, and Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 91, ECHR 2012).As the Court found in Roche v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 32555/96, § 120, ECHR 2005-X, emphasis added):.
[9] See, for example, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8793/79, 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98; Lithgow v. the United Kingdom, no. 9006/80, 8 July 1986, § 192, Series A no. 102; Holy Monasteries v. Greece, no. 13092/87, 9 December 1994, § 80, Series A no. 301-A; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005 X; and Boulois, cited above, § 91.
- EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12
STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
Finally, it is the right as asserted by the claimant in the domestic proceedings that must be taken into account in order to assess whether Article 6 § 1 is applicable (see Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 120, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).[16] See Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 120, ECHR 2013 (extracts).
[25] Established in the leading case Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, no. 8225/78, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93, and since then followed in many others, such as Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, § 40, Reports 1996-V;, Waite and Kennedy, cited above, § 59; Cudak, cited above, § 55; and Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 139, ECHR 2013 (extracts).
- EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
The dispute may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see Vilho Eskelinen v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II, and Sabeh El Leil v. France [GC], no. 34869/05, § 40, 29 June 2011).[11] Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 41, ECHR 2007-II, and Boulois, cited above, § 94.
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08
BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result 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, among many other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 71, 29 November 2016; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 100, 23 June 2016; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015).[8] See, among many other authorities, Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 100, ECHR 2016; Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 90, ECHR 2012; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015.
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98
Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
[74] See Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 25, ECHR 2001 VII. - EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 425/03
Obst gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90
FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
[37] See Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 67, Series A no. 294-B; and A, cited above, § 65. In the latter case, the Government argued that the substantive content of the civil right to reputation in domestic law was delimited by the rules of absolute parliamentary privilege, and that a person whose reputation was damaged by a parliamentary speech therefore had no actionable claim such as to engage the procedural safeguards of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
[9] See, for example, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8793/79, 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98; Lithgow v. the United Kingdom, no. 9006/80, 8 July 1986, § 192, Series A no. 102; Holy Monasteries v. Greece, no. 13092/87, 9 December 1994, § 80, Series A no. 301-A; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005 X; and Boulois, cited above, § 91. - EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85
ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
According to this Court's case-law, Article 6 § 1 applies to disputes (contestations) concerning civil "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, whether or not they are also protected by the Convention (see, in particular, Editions Périscope v. France, 26 March 1992, § 35, Series A no. 234-B, and Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, § 22, Series A no. 279-B). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13023/87
SALESI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98
Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94
WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89
MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 18136/02
Kündigung einer bei der evangelischen Kirche angestellten Kindergärtnerin wegen …
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11
MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79
FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88
ZANDER v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81
Deumeland ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 21.02.1986 - 8793/79
JAMES ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00
AZINAS c. CHYPRE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.11.2017 - C-414/16
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev unterliegen berufliche Anforderungen, die …
Vgl. CE:ECHR:2017:0914JUD005666509.