Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=9125/07
Timestamp: 2019-07-18 14:14:46+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2010,62228
EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07 (https://dejure.org/2010,62228)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.01.2010 - 9125/07 (https://dejure.org/2010,62228)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Januar 2010 - 9125/07 (https://dejure.org/2010,62228)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62228) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 14 MRK
Was den "zivilrechtlichen" Charakter dieses Rechts anbelangt, stellte der Gerichtshof fest, dass der in der Rechtssache Vilho Eskelinen (…a.a.O.) entwickelte Ansatz auch auf den Anspruch auf Zugang zu einem öffentlichen Amt anwendbar sei (…siehe Josephides ./. Zypern, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33761/02, Rdnr. 54, 6. 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).
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.
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 (Juricic, 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).
The Court has however accepted, in circumstances similar to those of the present case, that the right to a lawful and fair promotion procedure (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 (Juricic, 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 (Tsanova-Gecheva, cited above, § 84).
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).

References: Art. 6
 Art. 7
 Art. 14
 § 43
 § 35
 § 52
 § 43
 § 35
 § 52
 § 84
 § 43
 § 35
 § 52
 § 84