Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,40492) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (9) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99
In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see the Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31). - EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99
The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists (see, mutatis mutandis, the Vogt v. Germany judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, § 43-48).
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15
Kopfbedeckung im Gericht rechtmäßig
40. As mentioned above (see paragraph 26 above), the present case must be distinguished from cases concerning the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace, notably by public officials who may be put under a duty of discretion, neutrality and impartiality, including a duty not to wear such symbols and clothing while exercising official authority (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001, concerning the dismissal of a judge because she had, among other things, proselytised and prayed during court hearings; Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V, concerning the prohibition for a primaryschool teacher to wear a headscarf while teaching; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II, concerning the prohibition for a university professor to wear a headscarf while teaching; Eweida and Others, cited above, § 105, concerning the dismissal of a registrar of births, deaths and marriages as a result of her refusal to conduct samesex partnerships; and Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, ECHR 2015, concerning the prohibition for a social worker in the psychiatric department of a public hospital to wear a headscarf at work). - EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18
BRODA ET BOJARA c. POLOGNE
Elle rappelle que la justice n'est pas un service public ordinaire dans la mesure où elle constitue l'une des expressions essentielles de la souveraineté et relève des missions régaliennes de l'État (voir Pitkevich c. Russie (déc.), no 47936/99, 8 février 2001). - EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05
KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA
In its decision on inadmissibility in the case Pitkevich v. Russia (no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001) - concerning the dismissal of a judge who misused her office to pursue religious activities - the Court, having analysed judge Pitkevich's dismissal, found that the judiciary, while not part of the ordinary civil service, was nonetheless part of typical public service.
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 20261/12
Rechter Richtersturz nicht rechtens
Likewise, employment disputes involving posts in the judiciary were also excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 because although the judiciary was not part of the ordinary civil service, it was nonetheless considered part of typical public service (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001; as regards the president of a Supreme Court, see Harabin (dec.), cited above). - EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
JURICIC v. CROATIA
Likewise, employment disputes involving posts in the judiciary were also excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 because the judiciary, while not being part of the ordinary civil service, was nonetheless considered part of typical public service (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001). - EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 18381/05
MISHGJONI v. ALBANIA
The Government relied on the "functional" criterion as provided for in Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 66-67, ECHR 1999-VIII and Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001 in that a judge "participates directly in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and performs duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State". - EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 38406/97
ALBAYRAK v. TURKEY
Given the prominent place among State organs which is occupied by the judiciary in a democratic society, the Court considers that this is particularly so in the case of restrictions on the freedom of expression of a judge in connection with the performance of his functions, albeit the judiciary is not part of the ordinary civil service (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, ECHR 2001). - EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 68329/01
MICKOVSKI v.
The Court considers that the applicant may therefore be regarded as performing duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or other public authorities (see also, mutatis mutandis, Kajanen v. Finland, no. 36401/97, dec. 19.10.2000 and Pitkevich v. Russia, no. 47936/99, dec. 8.2.2001 concerning judges; and Martinez-Caro v. Spain, no. 42646/98 et al, dec. 7.3.2000, concerning senior diplomatic and embassy officers). - EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 36593/97
YILMAZOGLU v. TURKEY
Consequently, the judge participates directly in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and performs duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, ECHR 2001).