Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 50237/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,39682) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
JURIK v. SLOVAKIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 50237/99
- EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 50237/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 50237/99
As to the applicant's complaint about the proceedings concerning his dismissal, the Court recalls that employment disputes which are raised by public servants, such as members of the police, are excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, e.g., Pellegrin v. France, no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999-VIII and Frydlender v. France, no. 30979/96, § 33, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79
Inze ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 50237/99
b) To the extent that the applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention about discrimination in connection with his dismissal from the police, the Court recalls that Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and that there can be no room for its application unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more provisions of the Convention (Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, § 36). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 50237/99
Article 14 of the Convention cannot, therefore, be combined with it on the facts of the case (see Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, § 50). - EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80
GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 50237/99
a) To the extent that the applicant complains about his dismissal from the police, the Court recalls that neither the Convention nor any of its protocols sets forth a right of access to public service (see, e.g., the Glasenapp v. Germany judgment of 28 August 1986, Series A no. 104, p. 25, § 49). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 50237/99
c) As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court recalls that this provision has been interpreted as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, e.g., Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).