Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAJSKI v. CROATIA (No.2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08
• EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 16924/08
• EGMR - 16924/08 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  Before the judgment in the Vilho Eskelinen case, the Court held that employment disputes between the authorities and public servants whose duties typified the specific activities of public service, in so far as the latter was acting as the depositary of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State, were not "civil" and were excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 68329/01

  MICKOVSKI v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  Likewise, employment disputes involving state attorneys (solicitors general) were also excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 (see Mickovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 68329/01, 10 November 2005).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 53 below) also applied to the right of access to a public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, loc. cit.; and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62155/00

  PROVIDE S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  This is so because in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, mutatis mutandis, Depauw v. Belgium (dec.), no. 2115/04, ECHR 2007-V (extracts), and Provide S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 62155/00, § 18, ECHR 2007-VIII (extracts).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  JOSEPHIDES v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 53 below) also applied to the right of access to a public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, loc. cit.; and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 20774/05

  FIUME c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  Having regard to the findings of the State Attorneys Council in the present case, according to which both the applicant and Mrs D.K.I. satisfied the statutory conditions for appointment to the post of deputy county state attorney in the Vukovar County State Attorney's Office (see paragraph 7 above), the Court considers that the applicant had a "right" which could arguably be said to be recognised under Croatian law (see, for example, Kübler v. Germany, no. 32715/06, § 46, 13 January 2011; Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, § 62, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Fiume v. Italy, no. 20774/05, § 35, 30 June 2009).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  PENTTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 53 below) also applied to the right of access to a public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, loc. cit.; and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  The Government first referred to the Court's case-law, according to which the right of access to court extended only to "contestations" (disputes) over (civil) "rights and obligations" which were, at least on arguable grounds, recognised under domestic law (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  However, these limitations must not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see, for example, Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  The right of access, namely the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect of this "right to a court" (see, notably, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 28-36, Series A no. 18).