Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALLIKTAS BINGÖLLÜ v. TURKEY

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BALLIKTA?ž BINGÖLLÜ v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  The right to a fair hearing places the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence presented by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant (see, for instance, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  To begin with, the Court reiterates that Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one's own actions such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Sidabras and D?¾iautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 67, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 38162/07

  NAIDIN c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  In that connection, whereas no general right to employment, or a right of access to the civil service (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 43, Series A no. 323; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 57, ECHR 2007-II; and Emel Boyraz v. Turkey, no. 61960/08, § 41, 2 December 2014), or a right to choose a particular profession (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IV, and Naidin v. Romania, no. 38162/07, § 31, 21 October 2014) can be derived from Article 8, the notion of "private life", as a broad term, does not exclude in principle activities of a professional or business nature.

 
• EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 77955/01

  CAMPAGNANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  Likewise, the Court adopted a similar approach in Campagnano v. Italy (no. 77955/01, 23 March 2006), where the entry of that applicant's name in the bankruptcy register entailed a series of legal restrictions on the exercise of her professional activities and civil rights.
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  In that connection, whereas no general right to employment, or a right of access to the civil service (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 43, Series A no. 323; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 57, ECHR 2007-II; and Emel Boyraz v. Turkey, no. 61960/08, § 41, 2 December 2014), or a right to choose a particular profession (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IV, and Naidin v. Romania, no. 38162/07, § 31, 21 October 2014) can be derived from Article 8, the notion of "private life", as a broad term, does not exclude in principle activities of a professional or business nature.
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 41723/06

  Gillberg ./. Schweden

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  To begin with, the Court reiterates that Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one's own actions such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Sidabras and D?¾iautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 67, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; AnÄ?elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 34553/97

  DULAURANS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; AnÄ?elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  In this way the Article embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (see, among many authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, 23 June 2016).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  In that connection, whereas no general right to employment, or a right of access to the civil service (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 43, Series A no. 323; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 57, ECHR 2007-II; and Emel Boyraz v. Turkey, no. 61960/08, § 41, 2 December 2014), or a right to choose a particular profession (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IV, and Naidin v. Romania, no. 38162/07, § 31, 21 October 2014) can be derived from Article 8, the notion of "private life", as a broad term, does not exclude in principle activities of a professional or business nature.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 59290/00

  MONTCORNET DE CAUMONT contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14

  EVERS v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18

  PISKIN v. TURKEY
• EKMR, 07.05.1990 - 16266/90

  A. v. AUSTRIA

• EuGH, 23.03.2023 - C-514/21

  Minister for Justice and Equality (Levée du sursis)

  Nach seiner Rechtsprechung fallen zum einen Verfahren betreffend die Modalitäten der Strafvollstreckung nicht in den Anwendungsbereich von Art. 6 EMRK, und zum anderen können Maßnahmen, die ein Gericht nach der rechtskräftigen Verhängung einer Strafe oder während ihrer Vollstreckung trifft, nur dann als "Strafen" im Sinne der EMRK angesehen werden, wenn sie zu einer Neufestlegung oder einer Änderung des Umfangs der ursprünglich verhängten Strafe führen können (vgl. u. a. EGMR, 3. April 2012, Boulois/Luxemburg, CE:ECHR:2012:0403JUD003757504, § 87, EGMR, 10. November 2015, Çetin/Türkei, CE:ECHR:2015:1110DEC003285709, §§ 42 bis 47, EGMR, 12. November 2019, Abedin/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2019:1112DEC005402616, §§ 29 bis 37, EGMR, 22. Juni 2021, Ballikta?Ÿ Bingöllü, CE:ECHR:2021:0622JUD007673012, § 48, und EGMR, 10. November 2022, Kupinskyy/Ukraine, CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD000508418, §§ 47 bis 52).
• 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, 10.11.2022 - 25395/11

  JANELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  The Court notes that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable under its criminal head, as proceedings concerning the prison system, including those relating to the suspension of a prison sentence, do not relate in principle to the determination of a "criminal charge" (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 97, ECHR 2009, and Balliktas Bingöllü v. Turkey, no. 76730/12, § 48, 22 June 2021).