Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 41, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.08.2004 - 60860/00
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96

  MENNITTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  The Court recalls that disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (see Salesi v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-E, § 19; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 46; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 12.03.2002 - 2352/02

  HOLDING AND BARNES PLC contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  Unlike an inspector [in a planning case], whose position was described by Lord Hoffman [in R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Holding and Barnes, Alconbury Developments Ltd and Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd, [2001] UKHL 23; [2001] 2 All ER 929: see Holding and Barnes plc v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 2352/02, ECHR 2002] as independent, the same cannot be said of a councillor who is directly connected to one of the parties to the dispute, namely the Council.
• EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 29419/95

  STEFAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  The Convention organs followed the approach set out in Bryan to find that there had been "sufficiency of review" in a number of cases against the United Kingdom (see, for example, X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28530/95, Commission decision of 19 January 1998, concerning a determination by the Secretary of State that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be chief executive of an insurance company; Stefan v. the United Kingdom, no. 29419/95, Commission decision of 9 December 1997, concerning proceedings before the General Medical Council ("GMC") to establish whether or not the applicant was mentally ill and thus unfit to practise as a doctor; Wickramsinghe v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31503/96, 9 December 1997, concerning disciplinary proceedings before the GMC; and see also Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV).

 
• EKMR, 09.12.1997 - 31503/96

  WICKRAMSINGHE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  The Convention organs followed the approach set out in Bryan to find that there had been "sufficiency of review" in a number of cases against the United Kingdom (see, for example, X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28530/95, Commission decision of 19 January 1998, concerning a determination by the Secretary of State that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be chief executive of an insurance company; Stefan v. the United Kingdom, no. 29419/95, Commission decision of 9 December 1997, concerning proceedings before the General Medical Council ("GMC") to establish whether or not the applicant was mentally ill and thus unfit to practise as a doctor; Wickramsinghe v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31503/96, 9 December 1997, concerning disciplinary proceedings before the GMC; and see also Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EKMR, 19.01.1998 - 28530/95

  X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  The Convention organs followed the approach set out in Bryan to find that there had been "sufficiency of review" in a number of cases against the United Kingdom (see, for example, X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28530/95, Commission decision of 19 January 1998, concerning a determination by the Secretary of State that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be chief executive of an insurance company; Stefan v. the United Kingdom, no. 29419/95, Commission decision of 9 December 1997, concerning proceedings before the General Medical Council ("GMC") to establish whether or not the applicant was mentally ill and thus unfit to practise as a doctor; Wickramsinghe v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31503/96, 9 December 1997, concerning disciplinary proceedings before the GMC; and see also Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13023/87

  SALESI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  The Court recalls that disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (see Salesi v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-E, § 19; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 46; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  The Court recalls that disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (see Salesi v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-E, § 19; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, § 46; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 14.09.1987 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  Nor is the possibility of an appeal sufficient to compensate for lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the primary decision-maker (see De Cubber v. Belgium [judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 124-B]).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  The Court recalls that even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are "subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, § 29).

• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  According to the Court's case-law, even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are "subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (see Albert and Le Compte, cited above, § 29, and Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 42, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 29295/16

  FRANZ v. GERMANY

  The review will, however, fall short of Convention standards if the reviewing court is precluded from determining or failed to examine central issues in dispute (see, mutatis mutandis, Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 48, 14 November 2006; contrast: Tsanova-Gecheva, cited above, § 102).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.04.2018 - C-89/17

  Generalanwalt Bobek: Kehrt ein Unionsbürger in seinen Herkunftsmitgliedstaat …

  76 Urteile des EGMR vom 28. Mai 2002, Kingsley/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2002:0528JUD003560597, §§ 32 bis 34, und vom 14. November 2006, Tsfayo/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2006:1114JUD006086000, §§ 46 bis 49. In Bezug auf Art. 13 EMRK, vgl. Urteile vom 27. September 1999, Smith und Grady/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:1999:0927JUD003398596, §§ 135 bis 139, und vom 8. Juli 2003, Hatton u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2003:0708JUD003602297, §§ 140 bis 142.

 
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 24989/17

  ÐURIC v. SERBIA

  Turning to the present case, it is now well established that disputes over entitlements to social security or welfare benefits, including, for example, sickness benefits and welfare disability allowances, generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 58, 20 October 2015; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 40, 14 November 2006; Salesi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 19, Series A no. 257-E; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 46, Series A no. 263; Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, §§ 25-40, Series A no. 99; and Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, §§ 59-74, Series A no. 100).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-579/19

  Food Standards Agency

  83 Vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 14. November 2006, Tsfayo/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2006:1114JUD006086000, Nrn. 46 bis 49, insbesondere Nr. 46).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04

  BELKA v. POLAND

  In reaching that conclusion, the Court had regard, inter alia, to the similarities between the compensation claims asserted before the Foundation and disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits, which generally fall within the scope of Article 6 (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 39, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  KOSTKA v. POLAND

  In reaching that conclusion, the Court had regard, inter alia, to the similarities between the compensation claims asserted before the Foundation and disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits, which generally fall within the scope of Article 6 (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 39, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  KADLUCZKA v. POLAND

  In reaching that conclusion, the Court had regard, inter alia, to the similarities between the compensation claims asserted before the Foundation and disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits, which generally fall within the scope of Article 6 (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 39, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 79089/13

  LOQUIFER c. BELGIQUE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle, lorsque l'autorité prenant une décision portant sur des « droits et obligations de caractère civil'ne remplit pas les exigences de l'article 6 § 1, il n'y a pas violation de la Convention si sa décision peut faire l'objet d'un « contrôle ultérieur d'un organe judiciaire de pleine juridiction présentant, lui, les garanties de cet article'(voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Albert et Le Compte, précité, § 29, Tsfayo c. Royaume-Uni, no 60860/00, § 42, 14 novembre 2006, Denisov, précité, § 65, et Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, précité, § 132).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04

  KROSTA v. POLAND

  In reaching that conclusion, the Court had regard, inter alia, to the similarities between the compensation claims asserted before the Foundation and disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits, which generally fall within the scope of Article 6 (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 39, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 41285/02

  SZAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 25168/05

  CZEKIEN v. POLAND