Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;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)

  MENTES v. TURKEY

  Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

  HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10

  Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument put forward by a complainant, this obligation nevertheless presupposes that a party to judicial proceedings can expect a specific and express reply to those submissions which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings in question (ibid., § 30; see also, Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 28, Series A no. 303-B; Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 43, 15 March 2007; and Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, § 33, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10

  In sum, the complaint brought by the applicants under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is of a "fourth-instance" nature, and it is not for the Court to deal with such a complaint (see, among other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 90, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 21884/15

  CHOWDURY ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10

  What there has to be is work "exacted... under the menace of any penalty" and also performed against the will of the person concerned, that is work for which he "has not offered himself voluntarily" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 34, Series A no. 70, and more recently, Chowdury and Others v. Greece, no. 21884/15, § 90, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10

  Similarly, no legitimate expectation can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký, cited above, § 50, and Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10

  What there has to be is work "exacted... under the menace of any penalty" and also performed against the will of the person concerned, that is work for which he "has not offered himself voluntarily" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 34, Series A no. 70, and more recently, Chowdury and Others v. Greece, no. 21884/15, § 90, ECHR 2017).

• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 77504/13

  RADIO ATHINA MONOPROSOPI ETAIRIA PERIORISMENIS EFTHYNIS v. GREECE

  By contrast, the Court's case-law does not deem the existence of a "genuine dispute" or an "arguable claim" to constitute a criterion for determining whether there was a "legitimate expectation" protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Similarly, no "legitimate expectation" can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký, cited above, §§ 50 and 52, and Tibet Mentes and Others v. Turkey, nos. 57818/10 and 4 others, §§ 59-61, 24 October 2017).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 43987/11

  VASILJEVIC AND DROBNJAKOVIC v. SERBIA

  By contrast, the Court's case-law does not deem the existence of a "genuine dispute" or an "arguable claim" to constitute a criterion for determining whether there was a "legitimate expectation" protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Thus, no "legitimate expectation" can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký, cited above, §§ 50 and 52, and Tibet Mente?? and Others v. Turkey, nos. 57818/10 and 4 others, §§ 59-61, 24 October 2017).
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 45288/07

  AYKURT c. TURQUIE

  Il doit s'agir d'un travail « exigé (...) sous la menace d'une peine quelconque'et, de plus, contraire à la volonté de l'intéressé, pour lequel celui-ci « ne s'est pas offert de son plein gré'(voir, entre autres, Chitos c. Grèce, no 51637/12, §§ 79 et 88, CEDH 2015 (extraits), et Tibet Mentes et autres c. Turquie, nos 57818/10 et 4 autres, § 67, 24 octobre 2017).
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 7442/08

  ADIGÜZEL c. TURQUIE

  Dans ces circonstances, que le requérant ait risqué de subir des retenues sur son salaire, voire d'être licencié, s'il avait refusé de fournir lesdits services (paragraphe 24 ci-dessus), ne suffit pas pour conclure que ce travail lui avait été « exigé (...) sous la menace d'une peine quelconque ", au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour (voir Tibet Mentes et autres c. Turquie, nos 57818/10 et 4 autres, § 68, 24 octobre 2017, et pour les principes, voir Van der Mussele, précité, § 34, Siliadin, précité, § 116, et Graziani-Weiss, précité, § 36).