Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06
• EGMR, 14.09.2016 - 7984/06
• EGMR - 7984/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  The Court, therefore, recognises the lawfulness of the arrangement entered into between the applicant and her representative, Mr Ghazaryan (contrast with Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 22, Series A no. 59).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  Such agreements may show, if they are legally enforceable, that the sums claimed are actually payable by the applicant (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 2000-XI; and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 115, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  Nonetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce a person's access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired; lastly, such limitations will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V citing Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  The Court reiterates that when disputes to which Article 6 is applicable are determined by organs other than courts, the Convention calls at least for one of the following systems: either the jurisdictional organs themselves comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 or they do not so comply but are subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  Nonetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce a person's access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired; lastly, such limitations will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V citing Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  The Court reiterates that, according to the principle established in the Vilho Eskelinen and Others judgment (Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 61 and 62, ECHR 2007-II), in order for the respondent State to be able to rely before the Court on the applicant's status as a civil servant in excluding the protection embodied in Article 6, two conditions must be fulfilled.
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  In order for the exclusion to be justified, it is not enough for the State to establish that a civil servant participates in the exercise of public power or that there exists, to use the words of the Court in Pellegrin (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 65, ECHR 1999-VIII), a "special bond of trust and loyalty" between the civil servant and the State, as employer.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAGHATELYAN CONTRE L'ARMÉNIE

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAGHATELYAN AGAINST ARMENIA

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06
• EGMR, 14.09.2016 - 7984/06
• EGMR - 7984/06