Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FAZIA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Wird zitiert von ... (13) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
It was well-established that the right to social security or welfare benefit was a civil right (see, for example, Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 40, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100 and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263) and the fact that section 193 provided for a right to accommodation rather than any financial payment or subsidy should not alter the established position.It is now well-established that disputes over entitlement to social security or welfare benefits generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 40, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100 and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263).
For example, in Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, in which the applicant's entitlement to an invalidity pension depended upon a finding that she was at least 66.66% incapacitated, the Court accepted that Article 6 § 1 applied.
- EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
The applicant accepted that the initial lack of independence and impartiality could be cured if the decision were subject to the control of a court or tribunal which had "full jurisdiction" to consider the case (see, for example, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58).The Court recalls that even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has "full jurisdiction" and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 (Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58 and Sigma Radio Television Ltd, cited above, § 151).
- EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81
Deumeland ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
It was well-established that the right to social security or welfare benefit was a civil right (see, for example, Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 40, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100 and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263) and the fact that section 193 provided for a right to accommodation rather than any financial payment or subsidy should not alter the established position.It is now well-established that disputes over entitlement to social security or welfare benefits generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 40, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100 and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263).
- EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79
FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
It was well-established that the right to social security or welfare benefit was a civil right (see, for example, Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 40, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100 and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263) and the fact that section 193 provided for a right to accommodation rather than any financial payment or subsidy should not alter the established position.It is now well-established that disputes over entitlement to social security or welfare benefits generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 40, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100 and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263).
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
As has been explained in previous case-law (for example, Sigma Radio Television Ltd, cited above, § 154), in assessing the sufficiency of a judicial review available to an applicant, the Court will have regard to the powers of the judicial body in question (see for example, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 44, Series A no. 328-C; Bryan, §§ 44-45, cited above; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, § 55, ECHR 2001-X; and Kingsley, § 32, cited above), and to such factors as (a) the subject-matter of the decision appealed against, in particular, whether or not it concerned a specialised issue requiring professional knowledge or experience and whether it involved the exercise of administrative discretion and if so, to what extent; (b) the manner in which that decision was arrived at, in particular, the procedural guarantees available in the proceedings before the adjudicatory body; and (c) the content of the dispute, including the desired and actual grounds of appeal (see, inter alia, Bryan, §§ 44, 45 and 47, and Crompton §§ 71 - 73 and 77, both cited above). - EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86
ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
Both the Commission and the Court have acknowledged in their case-law that the requirement that a court or tribunal should have "full jurisdiction" ("pleine juridiction" in French) will be satisfied where it is found that the judicial body in question has exercised "sufficient jurisdiction" or provided "sufficient review" in the proceedings before it (see, amongst many authorities, Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 268-A; Bryan, cited above, §§ 43-47; Müller and others v. Austria (dec.), no. 26507/95, 23 November 1999; and Crompton v. the United Kingdom, no. 42509/05, §§ 71 and 79, 27 October 2009). - EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
In carrying out this assessment, it is necessary to look beyond the appearances and the language used and to concentrate on the realities of the situation (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50; Roche, cited above, § 121; and Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 92, 3 April 2012). - EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13023/87
SALESI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
The applicant noted that for a particular right to amount to a "civil right", it was sufficient for it to be an individual, economic right flowing from specific rules laid down in a statute (see, for example, Salesi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 19, Series A no. 257-E). - EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for civil "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90
FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for civil "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89
MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.04.2018 - C-89/17
Generalanwalt Bobek: Kehrt ein Unionsbürger in seinen Herkunftsmitgliedstaat …
75 Vgl. dazu z. B. Urteile des EGMR vom 22. November 1995, Bryan/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:1995:1122JUD001917891, §§ 44 bis 47, vom 27. Oktober 2009, Crompton/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2009:1027JUD004250905, §§ 78 und 79, vom 20. Oktober 2015, Fazia Ali/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2015:1020JUD004037810, §§ 79 ff. In Bezug auf Art. 13 EMRK, vgl. Urteile vom 7. Juli 1989, Soering/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:1989:0707JUD001403888, §§ 121 und 124, und vom 30. Oktober 1991, Vilvarajah u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:1991:1030JUD001316387, §§ 122 bis 127. - EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11
LETINCIC v. CROATIA
Both the Commission and the Court have acknowledged in their case-law that the requirement that a court or tribunal should have "full jurisdiction" ("pleine juridiction" in French) will be satisfied where it is found that the judicial body in question has exercised "sufficient jurisdiction" or provided "sufficient review" in the proceedings before it (see Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 76, 20 October 2015, and cases cited therein).However, in such a situation Article 6 § 1 requires that the decision of the administrative body be subject to subsequent supervision by a judicial body that has "full jurisdiction", in the sense of exercising "sufficient jurisdiction" (see Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 76, 20 October 2015), in order to review the "lawfulness" of the challenged act (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 84 and 86, Series A no. 52), and that the proceedings before the reviewing court themselves comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Albert and Le Compte, cited above, § 29; Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV; and Fazia Ali, cited above, § 75).
- EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 24989/17
ÐURIC v. SERBIA
Turning to the present case, it is now well established that disputes over entitlements to social security or welfare benefits, including, for example, sickness benefits and welfare disability allowances, generally fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 58, 20 October 2015; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 40, 14 November 2006; Salesi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 19, Series A no. 257-E; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 46, Series A no. 263; Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, §§ 25-40, Series A no. 99; and Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, §§ 59-74, Series A no. 100).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-579/19
Food Standards Agency
77 Vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 20. Oktober 2015, Fazia Ali/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2015:1020JUD004037810, Nr. 78). - EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
The Court has established the following standard under Article 6: "where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has "full jurisdiction" and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (see Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, 20 October 2015; see also, among other authorities, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58; Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, § 15, 21 July 2011; and Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III). - EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 19750/13
GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
In respect of the disciplinary proceedings, the Court notes that the Convention calls for at least one of the following two systems: either the professional disciplinary bodies themselves comply with the requirements of that Article, or they do not so comply but are subject to subsequent review by "a judicial body that has full jurisdiction" and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 (see Albert and Le Compte, cited above, § 29; Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-III; and Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, § 75, 20 October 2015). - EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 17257/13
SINE TSAGGARAKIS A.E.E. c. GRÈCE
While, of course, planning challenges by the person directly affected by a planning decision frequently if not invariably fall within the scope ratione materiae of Article 6 § 1 (see e.g. Bryan v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A), a significant enlarging of the category of persons (legal or natural) who can rely on Article 6 § 1 beyond those directly affected in order to challenge administrative decisions, as the majority purports to do in this judgment, ultimately is only likely to aggravate the problems already encountered by the national legal systems and in particular their courts; problems that are unlikely to be capable of being adequately compensated by adapting the level of review required in order to provide judicial scrutiny of sufficient scope to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (cf. Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, §§ 44 - 47, 20 October 2015). - EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 43237/13
CATANA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Appréciation de la Cour 61. Lorsque l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention trouve, comme en l'espèce, à s'appliquer à des procédures disciplinaires, la Cour rappelle que la Convention requiert la mise en place, pour le moins, d'un des deux mécanismes suivants: soit les organes professionnels disciplinaires répondent eux-mêmes aux exigences de l'article 6 de la Convention, soit ils ne les remplissent pas mais la procédure devant eux est soumise à un contrôle ultérieur d'un organe judiciaire de pleine juridiction présentant, lui, les garanties de cet article (Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique, 10 février 1983, § 29, série A no 58, Fazia Ali c. Royaume-Uni, no 40378/10, § 75, 20 octobre 2015, et Eminagaoglu c. Turquie, no 76521/12, §§ 94 et 103, 9 mars 2021, et les affaires qui y sont citées). - EGMR, 08.12.2022 - 34349/18
M.K. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Ainsi, la Cour rappelle qu'indépendamment du statut de la personne concernée, elle a admis l'applicabilité de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention à des litiges relatifs à l'hébergement social (Tchokontio Happi c. France, no 65829/12, 9 avril 2015, et Fazia Ali c. Royaume-Uni, no 40378/10, §§ 56-60, 20 octobre 2015) ou à des prestations sociales (Deumeland c. Allemagne, 29 mai 1986, §§ 59-74, série A no 100), même non contributives (Salesi c. Italie, 26 février 1993, § 19, série A no 257-E). - EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 38692/16
BLAZHESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
It is true that the Court has held Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to disputes over entitlement to social security or welfare benefits (see Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, §§ 58-59, 20 October 2015, with further references), while distinguishing them from private-law disputes in the traditional sense (see, among others, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, 29 May 1986, §§ 36-39, Series A no. 99, and Fazia Ali, cited above, §§ 58-59). - EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 39664/12
DE LAENDER ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 14139/09
SA PATRONALE HYPOTHÉCAIRE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 19673/16
ADIGUN v. IRELAND