Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PENTTINEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  As to the first condition, the Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable only if there is a genuine and serious "dispute" (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 81, Series A no. 52) over "civil rights and obligations".
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  Öffentlicher Dienst und civil rights

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The present case was not at all comparable to the case Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC] (no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV), which concerned persons already employed as civil servants and changes in their civil service relationships, namely a salary dispute.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85

  ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  Furthermore, "Article 6 § 1 extends to "contestations" (disputes) over (civil) "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective of whether they are also protected under the Convention" (see, inter alia, Editions Périscope v. France, 26 March 1992, § 35, Series A no. 234-B; and Zander v. Sweden, cited above).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, inter alia, Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A; and Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, inter alia, Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A; and Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The dispute may relate not only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise (see, inter alia, Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, § 22, Series A no. 279-B).
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 17271/04

  CVETKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  If a domestic system bars access to a court, the Court will verify that the dispute is indeed such as to justify the application of the exception to the guarantees of Article 6. If it does not, then there is no issue and Article 6 § 1 will apply irrespective of whether the applicant seeks reinstatement or some other form of pecuniary redress (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], cited above, §§ 61-62; and Cvetkovic v. Serbia, no. 17271/04, § 38, 10 June 2008).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 20774/05

  FIUME c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The Court notes that it is not disputed that the applicant had a right, according to the domestic law, to apply for the vacant posts (see Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, § 62, 20 October 2009; Fiume v. Italy, no. 20774/05, §§ 35-36, 30 June 2009; and Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, §§ 52-55, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  JOSEPHIDES v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  The Court notes that it is not disputed that the applicant had a right, according to the domestic law, to apply for the vacant posts (see Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, § 62, 20 October 2009; Fiume v. Italy, no. 20774/05, §§ 35-36, 30 June 2009; and Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, §§ 52-55, 6 December 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 32715/06

  Kübler ./. Deutschland

  Dezember 2007; Lombardi Vallauri ./. Italien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39128/05, Rdnr. 62, ECHR 2009-... [Auszüge]; und Penttinen ./. Finnland [Entsch.], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9125/07, 5. Januar 2010).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 61960/08

  [ENG]

  The Court therefore finds that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable to the present case and rejects the Government's objection (see, mutatis mutandis, Vilho Eskelinen and Others, cited above, §§ 61-62; Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, § 62, 20 October 2009; Eero Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010; and Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, §§ 53-56, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 19554/11

  [ENG]

  [10] Majski v. Croatia (No. 2), no.16924/08, 19 July 2011, Kübler v. Germany, no. 32715/06, 13 January 2011, and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no.33761/02, 6 December 2007, and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010.

• 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

  [ENG]

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 54 below) also applied to the right of access to public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, § 62, and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 2683/12

  FREZADOU v. GREECE

  The Court has, however, accepted, in circumstances similar to those of the present case, that the right to a lawful and fair promotion procedure (see Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova, cited above, § 43, Fiume, cited above, § 35, and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no 9125/07, 5 January 2010) or to equal participation in a competition for public office (Juričić, cited above, § 52) could be considered as recognised rights in domestic law, at least arguably where the domestic courts had recognised their existence and had examined the relevant complaints of the applicants (see Tsanova-Gecheva, cited above, § 84).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 58740/11

  F.G. c. GRÈCE

  9125/07, 5 Ιαν&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2010) ή εκείν&omikron; για µία ισότιµη συµµετ&omikron;χή σε διαγωνισµό για ένα δηµόσι&omikron; λειτ&omikron;Ï�ργηµα (πι&omikron; πάνω αναφερόµενη Juričić, § 52) µπ&omikron;ρ&omikron;Ï�σαν να θεωρηθ&omikron;Ï�ν ως αναγνωρισµÎ­να δικαιώµατα στην εθνική ν&omikron;µ&omikron;θεσία, τ&omikron;υλάχιστ&omikron;ν κατά τρόπ&omikron; υπερασπίσιµ&omikron;, αφ&omikron;Ï� τα εθνικά δικαστήρια είχαν αναγνωρίσει την Ï�παρξής τ&omikron;υς και είναι εξετάσει τις σχετικές αιτιάσεις των πρ&omikron;σφευγόντων (πι&omikron; πάνω αναφερόµενη Tsaneva-Gecheva, § 84).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  MAJSKI v. CROATIA (No.2)

  cit.; and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 37051/05

  BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA

  Moreover, the Court observes that the wording of the applicant's complaint relating to the alleged "superficial nature" of the judicial examination of her employment action cannot be said to concern an important question of principle, which might justify examining the present application on the merits (see also, on similar employment disputes with local authorities, and among many other examples, Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010; and Feller v. Austria (dec.), no. 17169/06, 4 February 2010).