Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FIUME c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)

• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 1469/20

  ADVANCE PHARMA SP. Z O.O v. POLAND

  This issue would have deserved more thorough consideration in the light of the Court's rich case law (see, in particular, Revel and Mora v. France (dec.), no. 171/03, 15 November 2005; Tencheva-Rafailova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 13885/04, 5 January 2010; Fiume v. Italy, no. 20774/05, § 35, 30 June 2009; Majski v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 16924/08, § 50, 19 July 2011; Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, 26 July 2011; Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, § 84, 15 September 2015; F.G. v. Greece (dec.), 58740/11, 25 April 2017; and Frezadou v. Greece, no. 2683/12, 8 November 2018).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 43800/12

  TSANOVA-GECHEVA c. BULGARIE

  La Cour a cependant déjà admis, dans des circonstances similaires à celles de l'espèce, que le droit à une procédure de de recrutement ou de promotion légale et équitable (Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova, décision précitée, § 43, Fiume c. Italie, no 20774/05, § 35, 30 juin 2009, et Penttinen c. Finlande (déc.), no 9125/07, 5 janvier 2010) ou à un accès égal à l'emploi et à la fonction publique (Juricic c. Croatie, no 58222/09, § 52, 26 juillet 2011) pouvaient passer pour des droits reconnus, au moins de manière défendable, en droit interne, dans la mesure où les juridictions internes avaient reconnu leur existence et avaient examiné les moyens soulevés par les intéressés à cet égard.
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09

  JURICIC v. CROATIA

  In these circumstances, 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, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  MAJSKI v. CROATIA (No.2)

  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 - 16924/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009; Sultana v. Malta (dec.), no. 970/04, 11 December 2007; Apay v. Turkey, no. 3964/05, 11 December 2007; Habsburg-Lothringen v. Austria, no. 15344/89, Commission decision of 14 December 1989, Decisions and Reports (DR) 64; and Fiume v. Italy, no. 20774/05, 30 June 2009)?.
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 18952/18

  GLOVELI v. GEORGIA

  The Court considers that the dispute was "genuine" and "serious" as it concerned the fairness of the judicial selection and appointment procedure and could lead to the annulment of the contested decision and the reconsideration of the applicant's application for the post (see Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek, § 232, Juricic, § 52, and Tsanova-Gecheva, § 84, all cited above; see also Fiume v. Italy, no. 20774/05, § 35, 30 June 2009, and Bara and Kola v. Albania, nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 58, 12 October 2021).