(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00 - dejure.org

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,23265
EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,23265)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.04.2007 - 63235/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,23265)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. April 2007 - 63235/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,23265)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,23265) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    VILHO ESKELINEN ET AUTRES c. FINLANDE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 6-1 en raison de la durée de la procédure Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 en raison de l'absence d'audience Violation de l'Art. 13 Non-violation de P1-1 pris isolément ou combiné avec l'art. 14 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings) No violation of Art. 6-1 (lack of a hearing) Violation of Art. 13 No violation of P1-1 alone or in conjunction with Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (196)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

  • EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

    PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    The international law and practice from which the Court sought guidance in Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII) has been outlined in that judgment (see §§ 37-41).

    The Government contested the applicability of Article 6 on the ground that the applicants" duties, except for those of the office assistant, entailed direct participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State (in this connection, they referred to Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999-VIII).

    The reasoning on which we based our decision consisted in following the approach taken in Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII).

  • EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

    Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    Looking to European law generally, which provides useful guidance (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, §§ 43-45, 92 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 54, ECHR 2002-VII; and Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court notes that Pellegrin sought support in the categories of activities and posts listed by the European Commission and by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in connection with the exception to the freedom of movement (see Pellegrin, cited above, § 66).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" both in law and in practice (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
     
  • EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

    LEANDER c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    The Government also relied on the principle that, although no single remedy might itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law might do so (see, for example, X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 60, Series A no. 46; Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 56, Series A no. 50; and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, §§ 77 and 81-82, Series A no. 116).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    The Court reiterates that in civil matters the reasonable time may begin to run, in some circumstances, even before the issue of the writ commencing proceedings before the court to which the plaintiff submits the dispute (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 32, Series A no. 18).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    Indeed, while neither the Convention nor its Protocols guarantee a right of recruitment to the civil service, it does not follow that in other respects civil servants fall outside the scope of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 60, Series A no. 94, and Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 49, Series A no. 104).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    This is the situation in the applicants" case, since they could not seize the County Administrative Court before receiving, on their rectification request (see paragraph 19), a decision which could be appealed against (see, mutatis mutandis, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Janssen v. Germany, no. 23959/94, § 40, 20 December 2001; and Hellborg v. Sweden, no. 47473/99, § 59, 28 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

    Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    It should be emphasised, however, that this situation is distinct from other cases, which due to the claims being made are regarded as falling outside the civil and criminal heads of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia, for the assessment of tax, Ferrazzini v. Italy ([GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001-VII); for matters of asylum, nationality and residence in a country, Maaouia v. France ([GC], no. 39652/98, ECHR 2000-X); and for the adjudication of election disputes in respect of members of parliament, Pierre-Bloch, cited above).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

    GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    Indeed, while neither the Convention nor its Protocols guarantee a right of recruitment to the civil service, it does not follow that in other respects civil servants fall outside the scope of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 60, Series A no. 94, and Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 49, Series A no. 104).
  • EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72

    SCHMIDT ET DAHLSTRÖM c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
    As a general rule, the guarantees in the Convention extend to civil servants (see, mutatis mutandis, Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden, 6 February 1976, § 33, Series A no. 21; Engel and Others, cited above, § 54; Glasenapp, cited above, § 49; and Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2 September 1998, § 56, Reports 1998-VI).
  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

    ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

    ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96

    MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

    KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  • EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95

    POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

    DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  • EuGH, 23.04.1986 - 294/83

    Les Verts / Parlament

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

    PUDAS c. SUÈDE

  • EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 11519/85

    FRANCESCO LOMBARDO v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 14399/88

    MASSA v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02

    KANAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 70497/01

    VERESOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 31439/96

    KEPKA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 12.11.2008 - 34503/97

    Demir und Baykara ./. Türkei - Streikrecht für Beamte

    Moreover, in the cases of Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI), Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-...) and Sørensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (cited above), the Court was guided by the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, even though this instrument was not binding.

    This is all perfectly consistent with the practice of the Court, which, whilst in principle following its own previous rulings, does from time to time, very cautiously, develop its case-law by a reversal of precedent (see Christine Goodwin, cited above, §§ 74 and 93; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 56, ECHR 2007-....; and Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 109, 121 and 125, ECHR 2005-I).

  • EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 9300/07

    Herrmann ./. Deutschland

    Siehe zum Beispiel Vilho Eskelinen und andere./. Finnland [GK], Nr. 63235/00, Rdnrn. 56 und 57, CEDH 2007-II. Wie der Gerichtshof in seinem ersten Urteil zu einer Staatenbeschwerde in der Sache Irland./. Vereinigtes Königreich (…18. Januar 1978, Rdnr. 154, Serie A Band 25) ausgeführt hat, "dienen seine Urteile nicht nur dazu, die Fälle zu entscheiden, mit denen er befasst ist, sondern allgemeiner die Konventionsbestimmungen zu erklären, zu schützen und weiter zu entwickeln und somit dazu beizutragen, dass die Staaten Verpflichtungen, die sie in ihrer Eigenschaft als Vertragsstaaten eingegangen sind, erfüllen".
  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

    MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

    Furthermore, the adoption of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, even though it has to date been ratified by only seven member States, denotes a continuous evolution towards the recognition of the State's obligation to provide access to public information (for other examples where the Court has previously taken into account international instruments not ratified by all or the majority of State Parties to the Convention, see Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 75, ECHR 2004-II, and Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 59, ECHR 2004-XII; or that were not binding at the material time, see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-II; and Marckx, cited above, §§ 20 and 41).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht