Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRAZULEVICIUTE v. LITHUANIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GRAZULEVICIUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 41723/06

  Gillberg ./. Schweden

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  When it comes to the consequences of the applicant's suspension, the first question which arises is whether there can be any scope for an issue under Article 8 in the light of the Gillberg exclusionary principle (see Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 68, 3 April 2012; see also Denisov, cited above, § 98).

  In this respect, the Court has held that the notion of "private life" may include professional activities (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and also reiterates that Article 8 protects the right to personal development (see Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 66, 3 April 2012; and Barbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, § 70, ECHR 2017 (extracts), and the case-law cited therein).

  In this respect it must be mentioned that the notion of "private life" may include professional activities (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and that Article 8 protects the right to personal development (see Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 66, 3 April 2012; and Barbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, § 70, ECHR 2017 (extracts), and the case-law cited therein).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  The Government 90. At the outset, the Government argued that the applicant's inability to work as a researcher in clinical trials which, in the Government's view, the applicant "had actively carried out only as of 2011", had not affected her ability to work as a doctor to such a degree as to attain the threshold of severity under Article 8 of the Convention (they relied on Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2018).

  Article 8 likewise protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 95, 25 September 2018).

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 526/18

  PLATINI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  The applicant has plausibly argued that her suspension, which, in addition, had been made public on the website of the State Medicines Control Agency ("SMCA"), caused a loss of trust in her as a medical professional by sponsors of clinical trials (compare Platini v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 526/18, § 57, 11 February 2020).

 
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02

  ROSCA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX; Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005; and Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia, no. 8001/07, § 67, 27 October 2016).
• EGMR, 05.09.2019 - 39814/12

  AGRO FRIGO OOD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  The relevant considerations to be taken into account in this connection include, in particular, the effect of the reopening and any subsequent proceedings on the applicant's individual situation (see, Agro Frigo OOD v. Bulgaria, no. 39814/12, § 35, 5 September 2019, and, mutatis mutandis, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 29115/07

  SAMAT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  Accordingly, the Court cannot hold that in the circumstances of the present case the principle of legal certainty was disturbed in order to correct a "fundamental defect" or a "miscarriage of justice" (see, among other authorities, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX, and, more recently, Samat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 62, 21 January 2020).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 40713/04

  SHCHUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  Any review should not be treated as an appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not grounds for re-examination (see Shchurov v. Russia, no. 40713/04, § 18, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  The relevant considerations to be taken into account in this connection include, in particular, the effect of the reopening and any subsequent proceedings on the applicant's individual situation (see, Agro Frigo OOD v. Bulgaria, no. 39814/12, § 35, 5 September 2019, and, mutatis mutandis, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  In the present case, the parties disagreed on which percentage of her annual income her work as a clinical researcher had accounted for (see paragraphs 86 and 91 in fine above), and the Court does not consider it necessary to quantify that, since, in any case, the number has not been determined by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 61, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  45434/12 and 2 others, 27 November 2018, and the judgments in the cases of Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 40072/13, 19 October 2021, and Camelia Bogdan v. Romania, no. 36889/18, 20 October 2020; compare also, outside the judicial context, Balliktas Bingöllü v. Turkey, no. 76730/12, 22 June 2021, and Grazulevici?«te v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, 14 December 2021).
• EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 35802/16

  KRIVTSOVA c. RUSSIE

  Le présent arrêt me paraît dès lors entretenir une certaine confusion entre ces deux problématiques qui sont traditionnellement appréhendées distinctement dans la jurisprudence de la Cour (voir, pour un exemple récent de ce second cas de figure, Gra?¾uleviciute c. Lituanie, no 53176/17, §§ 72-83, 14 décembre 2021 ; voir également Chengelyan et autres c. Bulgarie, no 47405/07, §§ 31-38, 21 avril 2016).
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 23721/11

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  The Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, encompasses the requirement that where the courts have finally determined a dispute between given parties, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, and Gra?¾ulevici?«te v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, § 72, 14 December 2021).

 
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 16087/18

  JELCIC STEPINAC v. CROATIA

  The principle of legal certainty dictates that where a civil dispute is examined on the merits by the courts, it should be decided once and for all, and a departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as the correction of fundamental defects or a miscarriage of justice (see, for example, Gra?¾uleviciute v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, §§ 73, 80 and 82, 14 December 2021).
• EGMR - 25336/22 (anhängig)

  MANKUS v. LITHUANIA

  Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the courts' finding that he is prohibited from working in statutory organisations due to his previous conviction (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 92-117, 25 September 2018, and Jankauskas v. Lithuania (no. 2), no. 50446/09, §§ 56-58, 27 June 2017; see also, mutatis mutandis, Grazuleviciute v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, §§ 95-111, 14 December 2021)?.
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 12486/12

  DEGTYAR v. UKRAINE

  It has found a violation of that provision in a number of cases where facts that had already been determined by a final judgment were later overruled by the courts in a new case between the same parties (see, for instance, Esertas v. Lithuania, no. 50208/06, § 25, 31 May 2012, and Grazuleviciute v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, §§ 80-83, 14 December 2021).