Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARUSIC v. CROATIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARUSIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 79821/12

  Moreover, in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (23 June 1981, § 49, Series A no. 43), where only a temporary suspension of the right to exercise the medical profession was at stake, the Court stressed that in the "contestations" (disputes) contemplated by Article 6 § 1 the actual existence of a "civil" right may be at stake, but so may the scope of such a right or the manner in which the beneficiary may avail himself or herself thereof.
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 47195/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 79821/12

  It is the Court's well-established case-law that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake give rise to "contestations" (disputes) over civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, for instance, Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 35, Reports 1998-III; W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, §§ 25-31, 21 December 1999; and Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, § 39, 19 February 2013).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 79821/12

  This will be the case where the outcome of the proceedings depends on an assessment of an unjustified attack and harm to good reputation (see, for instance, Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 29, Series A no. 212-A).

• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 79821/12

  For the case-law of the Constitutional Court and the High Administrative Court on the applicability of the guarantees of a fair trial in the administrative proceedings see Letinčić v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, §§ 29-31, 3 May 2016.
• EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 16924/08

  MAJSKI AGAINST CROATIA (NO.2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 79821/12

  In such cases the Administrative Court could not review every breach of procedural or substantive law but only those that amount to breaches of constitutionally guaranteed rights or freedoms (see further Majski v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 16924/08, §§ 35-36, 19 July 2011).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 65182/10

  YILDIZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 79821/12

  Accordingly, in this connection Article 6 cannot come into play (compare Yıldız v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65182/10, § 39, 24 January 2017).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 30989/20

  GEROVSKA-POPCHEVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  56064/16, 58000/16 and 15087/17, § 44, 9 January 2024, and Marušić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 79821/12, §§ 76 and 77, 23 May 2017; and compare, for example, in the context of Article 8, 0vcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 37954/21

  SKRCHESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  56064/16, 58000/16 and 15087/17, § 44, 9 January 2024, and Marušić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 79821/12, §§ 76 and 77, 23 May 2017; and compare, for example, in the context of Article 8, 0vcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 44794/19

  SALVADOR COUTINHO DOS SANTOS AMADO c. PORTUGAL

  Aussi, d'après le Gouvernement, étant donné que la procédure d'inspection ne remettait pas directement en cause le droit du requérant à exercer ses fonctions de juge, une telle issue étant trop éloignée, le volet civil de l'article 6 ne serait donc pas applicable aux faits de l'espèce citant à cet égard la décision Marušić c. Croatie ((déc.), no 79821/12, §§ 74-75, 23 mai 2017) et, a contrario, l'arrêt Eminağaoğlu c. Turquie (no 76521/12, § 66, 9 mars 2021).

• EGMR, 09.01.2024 - 56064/16

  AKTAY v. TURKEY and 2 applications

  Therefore, the question of good reputation was only remotely related to the impugned proceedings as one of the possible consequences of a finding that there had been an abuse of the right of application (see, mutatis mutandis, Marušić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 79821/12, §§ 76-77, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 32985/12

  ERDOGAN v. TURKEY

  In the context of proceedings before professional disciplinary bodies, the Court has consistently held that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake give rise to "contestations" (disputes) over civil rights and obligations (see Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, and Marušić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 79821/12, § 71, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR - 37988/21 (anhängig)

  GRINNEMO AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see, for example, Marušic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 79821/12, §§ 71-78, 23 May 2017; Angerjärv and Greinoman v. Estonia, nos.
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 39852/16

  ALIJEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  In this connection, it points out that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake, notwithstanding the actual sanction imposed (see Marušić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 79821/12, § 72, 23 May 2017)), give rise to "contestations" (disputes) over civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. This principle has been applied with regard to proceedings conducted before various professional disciplinary bodies, such as those within a medical association (see Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III), an international sports association in anti-doping proceedings (see Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, § 58, 2 October 2018), a professional Chamber (see Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports 1997-IV) and a lawyers' bar association (see Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, §§ 39 and 40, 19 February 2013).