Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Harabin v. Slovakia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  Even assuming that the applicant 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), the Court reiterates that where, as in the instant case, the applicant alleges a violation of the rights conferred by the Convention by the final judicial authority of the domestic legal system, the application of Article 13 is implicitly restricted.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  The Court reiterates that the right under Article 14 not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention or its Protocols is violated when States treat individuals in analogous situations differently without providing an objective and reasonable justification (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 64119/00

  KAYASU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  64119/00 and 76292/01, §§ 77-79, 13 November 2008; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009; and Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, §§ 55-57, 7 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95

  Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  In order to determine whether that is the case, the scope of the disciplinary measure must be determined by putting it in the context of the facts of the case and of the relevant legislation (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 42-43, ECHR 1999-VII; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 29 June 2004; Kayasu v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 15966/06

  Poyraz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  64119/00 and 76292/01, §§ 77-79, 13 November 2008; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009; and Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, §§ 55-57, 7 December 2010).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  Secondly, the exclusion must be justified on objective grounds in the State's interest (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2007-II).

• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

  Whilst the Court stated in the Vilho Eskelinen judgment that its reasoning in that case was limited to the situation of civil servants (§ 61 of the judgment), the Grand Chamber notes that the criteria established in that judgment have been applied by different Chambers of the Court to disputes regarding judges (see G. v. Finland, no. 33173/05, 27 January 2009; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, ECHR 2013; Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, 9 July 2013; and Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, 15 September 2015), including presidents of Supreme Courts (see Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009, and Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  For more factual details concerning the background see the Court's judgment of 20 November 2012 in the case of Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 58688/11) and decision of 29 June 2004 in Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 62584/00, ECHR 2004-VI).

  Application no. 58688/11.

  In application no. 58688/11, the applicant mainly asserted a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the disciplinary proceeding against him mentioned above.

  Execution of the Court's judgment in application no. 58688/11.

• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12

  Rechter Richtersturz nicht rechtens

  Only the post-Eskelinen case-law should be taken into consideration in respect of judges" employment disputes (see Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009, and Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012).

  The Court notes that the status which the applicant enjoyed as President of the Supreme Court did not deprive him of the protection of Article 10 (see Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 149, 20 November 2012).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  64119/00 and 76292/01, §§ 77-79, 13 November 2008; Kudeshkina, cited above, § 79; Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, §§ 55-57, 7 December 2010; Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012; Baka, cited above, § 140; Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 40072/13, § 153, 19 October 2021; and ?"urek v. Poland, no. 39650/18, § 201, 16 June 2022).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 25240/20

  GYULUMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Therefore, even assuming that the doctrine of necessity is compatible with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention (see Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 139, 20 November 2012, in which that question was also left open), the Court considers that respect for the principle of impartiality (nemo iudex in causa sua) could not be reconciled with ensuring to the applicants the right of access to the Constitutional Court in practice.
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE

  Pour répondre à cette question, il a fallu déterminer la portée de ces mesures en les replaçant dans le contexte des faits de la cause et de la législation pertinente (Baka, précité, §§ 140 et 143, Harabin c. Slovaquie, no 58688/11, § 149, 20 novembre 2012, et Wille c. Liechtenstein [GC], no 28396/95, § 43, CEDH 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 11608/15

  HERBAI v. HUNGARY

  It however also held that comments which lay within the applicant's sphere of employment in the civil service and which had been made pursuant to his official duties did not involve any statements or views in the context of a public debate and did not relate to freedom of expression (see Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, §§ 151-153, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND

  64119/00 and 76292/01, §§ 77-79, 13 November 2008; Kudeshkina, cited above, § 79; Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, §§ 55-57, 7 December 2010; Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012; Baka, cited above, § 140; and Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 40072/13, § 153, 19 October 2021).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 33392/12

  PALUDA v. SLOVAKIA

  As to the scope of the case, the Court considers it appropriate to point out at the outset that it concerns a temporary suspension of the applicant and not a termination of his mandate (see, a contrario, for example, Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 88, ECHR 2016) or the underlying proceedings in respect of the disciplinary charges against him (see, a contrario, for example, Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 113, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 24492/21

  OKTAY ALKAN v. TÜRKIYE

  5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017; Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, §§ 82-88, 31 October 2017; and Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia, no. 2463/12, §§ 49-59, 6 December 2022), reduction in salary following conviction for a serious disciplinary offence (see Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, §§ 118-23, 20 November 2012), removal from post (for example, President of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal or Vice-President of the Regional Court) while remaining a judge (see Baka, cited above, §§ 34 and 107-11; Denisov, cited above, § 54; and Broda and Bojara v. Poland, nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18, §§ 121-23, 29 June 2021), functions other than the principal activity of a judge (premature termination of the term of office of a judge elected to serve in the judicial council) while remaining a judge (see Grzeda, cited above, §§ 289-327) or judges being prevented from exercising their judicial functions after legislative reform (see Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, §§ 61 and 65-67, 22 July 2021).
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 43237/13

  CATANA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 39852/16

  ALIJEVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 15549/16

  GEORGE-LAVINIU GHIURAU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  SMILJAN PERVAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 49131/10

  SIMKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 65717/14

  AUGUSTE v. LITHUANIA