Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAMENOS v. CYPRUS

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - ...

• juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2019, 213

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  Secondly, even if such a right was deemed to exist, it was not "civil" in nature as the two conditions established in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II) had been fulfilled.

  [2] [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007.

• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  In order to establish whether a person has been criminally convicted within the autonomous meaning of the Convention the Court applies the so-called "Engel criteria" (Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 82 and 83, Series A no. 22; see also Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 93, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among many authorities, Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 99, 19 September 2017; Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 60, 14 September 2017; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 100, ECHR 2016 and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  Therefore a situation which might occasion misgivings on the part of the accused could not necessarily be treated as objectively justified (relying on Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 49, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, §§ 79-83, ECHR 2000-IX; and Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal, 22 April 1994, §§ 35-40, Series A no. 286-B).
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 24954/94

  TIERCE ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, §§ 79-83, ECHR 2000-IX; and Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal, 22 April 1994, §§ 35-40, Series A no. 286-B).

• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 3594/19

  KÖVESI v. ROMANIA

  Nevertheless, relying on the Court's extensive case-law amongst which the cases of Baka v. Hungary ([GC], no. 20264/12, 23 June 2016), Olujic v. Croatia (no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009) and Kamenos v. Cyprus (no. 147/07, 31 October 2017), the applicant submitted that the criteria set out by the Court in the Vilho Eskelinen and Others judgment ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-II) were also applicable in her case.
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  BILGEN v. TURKEY

  5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017; Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017; and Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, § 88, 31 October 2017), removed from an administrative position without the termination of their duties as a judge (see Baka, §§ 34 and 107-11, and Denisov, §§ 25, 47-48 and 54, both cited above) or suspended from judicial office (see Paluda v. Slovakia, no. 33392/12, § 34, 23 May 2017) or otherwise subjected to a disciplinary sanction (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 119-20).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 24269/18

  STYLIANIDIS v. CYPRUS

  Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law (no. 33/1964) 18. The relevant domestic provisions concerning the SCJ at the material time are set out in Kamenos v. Cyprus (no. 147/07, §§ 34-36, 31 October 2017).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 72437/11

  DONEV c. BULGARIE

  Elle rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence, le terme « tribunal'ne désigne pas nécessairement une juridiction de type classique, intégrée aux structures judiciaires ordinaires du pays, et qu'une autorité peut être considérée comme un « tribunal ", au sens matériel du terme, lorsqu'il lui appartient de trancher, sur la base de normes de droit, avec plénitude de juridiction et à l'issue d'une procédure organisée, toute question relevant de sa compétence (Argyrou et autres c. Grèce, no 10468/04, § 24, 15 janvier 2009 § 24, Di Giovanni, précité, § 52, et Kamenos c. Chypre, no 147/07, §§ 85-87, 31 octobre 2017).
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

  PELEKI c. GRÈCE

  Plusieurs catégories professionnelles ont été visées: des avocats (Brown c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 38644/97, 24 novembre 1998, Müller-Hartburg c. Autriche, no 47195/06, §§ 41-48, 19 février 2013, Helmut Blum c. Autriche, no 33060/10, § 59, 5 avril 2016, et Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 64735/14, §§ 51-57, 13 septembre 2016) ; des fonctionnaires (J.L. c. France (déc.), no 17055/90, 5 avril 1995, Costa c. Portugal (déc.), no 44135/98, 9 décembre 1999, Linde Falero c. Espagne (déc.), no 51535/99, 22 juin 2000, Moullet c. France (déc.), no 27521/04, 13 septembre 2007, Vagenas c. Grèce (déc.), no 53372/07, 23 août 2011, et Nikolova et Vandova c. Bulgarie, no 20688/04, § 59, 17 décembre 2013) ; des médecins (Ouendeno c. France (déc.), no 18441/91, 2 mars 1994) ; des militaires (Kaplan et Karaca c. Turquie (déc.), no 40536/98, Gökden et Karacol c. Turquie, (déc.), no 40535/98, Batur c. Turquie, (déc.), no 38604/97, Duran et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 38925/97, Yildirim c. Turquie (déc.), no 40800/98, et Durgun c. Turquie (déc.), no 40751/98, décisions du 4 juillet 2007) ; des liquidateurs judiciaires (Galina Kostova c. Bulgarie, no 36181/05, § 52, 12 novembre 2013) ; des juges (Oleksandr Volkov, précité, §§ 92-95, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, § 35, 9 juillet 2013, Sturua c. Géorgie, no 45729/05, § 28, 28 mars 2017, et Kamenos c. Chypre, no 147/07, §§ 50-53, 31 octobre 2017) et, comme dans les circonstances de la présente affaire, des notaires (Durand, décision précitée, §§ 55-60 ; voir également Yankov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 44768/10, 18 juin 2019).
• 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, 08.10.2019 - 46466/16

  GRACE GATT v. MALTA

  It appears that despite the constitutional jurisdictions" conclusions to the contrary (the latter having dismissed the claim in brief statements) the Government appear to consider that the bodies involved in the disciplinary proceedings (the Board, the PSC and the Prime Minister) have, in combination, performed a judicial function (compare Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2013, see also the considerations made in Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 37-42 5, February 2009 and Kamenos v. Cyprus no. 147/07, § 86, 31 October 2017 as well as in a number of other cases cited in the latter judgment § 79).
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 20235/11

  VATHAKOS c. GRÈCE

  La Cour note que le Gouvernement ne conteste pas l'applicabilité de l'article 6 à la procédure litigieuse, position en tout état de cause confirmée par sa propre jurisprudence (Vilho Eskelinen et autres c. Finlande [GC], no 63235/00, CEDH 2007-II ; Kamenos c. Chypre, no 147/07, § 73, 31 octobre 2017).
• EGMR - 36862/23 (anhängig)

  KONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUS

  Was the Supreme Constitutional Court acting as Revisional Second Instance Council of Judicature which dealt with the applicant's objection against the decision not to be promoted, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 60-65, 25 September 2018; Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, §§ 96-101, 31 October 2017; Tsanova-Gecheva, cited above, §§ 106-108, among many authorities)?.
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 75587/17

  ROBLEDO v. ITALY

  The Court must therefore assess this situation under the objective impartiality test (see Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, § 100, 31 October 2017).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 30745/18

  COTORA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 23532/14

  DAINELIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 28.02.2023 - 60804/19

  SERBAN-PARAU c. ROUMANIE