Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=15869/02
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:32:05
Document Index: 7118428

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'art. 6', '§ 66', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 10', '§ 44', '§ 33', '§ 36', '§ 66', '§ 71', '§ 58', '§ 117', '§ 45']

Rechtsprechung: 15869/02 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 06.09.2016 | EGMR, 02.03.2006
Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
CUDAK c. LITUANIE
Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel et préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)
L'argument semble étrange si l'on garde à l'esprit que la Cour a pour pratique courante de s'inspirer de plusieurs instruments internationaux, qu'ils aient ou non été ratifiés par l'État défendeur, dès lors qu'ils reflètent l'état actuel du droit international général (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Cudak c. Lituanie [GC], no 15869/02, § 66, CEDH 2010).
Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass die in diesem Artikel enthaltene Regelung, die überdies die Feststellung einer internationalen Zuständigkeit des angerufenen Gerichts voraussetzt (vgl. YILC 1991 II (2) S. 34), die Immunität über die oben dargestellte Rechtsprechung hinaus einschränken würde und insoweit als Völkergewohnheitsrecht gälte (so zu der Regelung für Arbeitsverträge in Art. 11 des Übereinkommens EGMR, Urteile vom 23. März 2010 - 15869/02, Cudak/Litauen, Slg. 2010 - III, 153 Rn. 66 f. …und vom 29. Juni 2011 - 34869/05, Sabeh El Leil/Frankreich, NJOZ 2012, 1333 Rn. 54; in Bezug auf Art. 10 offengelassen von BGH…, Urteil vom 24. März 2016 - VII ZR 150/15, BGHZ 209, 290 Rn. 21 und 24), sind nicht ersichtlich (vgl. OLG Köln, Urteil vom 1. September 2017 - 6 U 186/16, n.v. Umdruck S. 18).
It notes that since the dispute at issue related to the applicant's dismissal from her employment, it concerned a "civil" right (see e.g. Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, §§ 44 to 47, ECHR-2010).
[11] Sabeh el Leil v. France, (GC) no. 34869/05, 29 June 2011, and Cudak v. Lithuania (GC), no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010.
In Paulík, cited above, there was no suggestion that the distinction relied upon had any relevance outside the applicant's complaint but this did not prevent the Court from finding a violation of Article 14. The question whether there is a difference of treatment based on a personal or identifiable characteristic in any given case is a matter to be assessed taking into consideration all of the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that the aim of the Convention is to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; and Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 36, 23 March 2010).
Although the latter treaty is not yet in force and only three respondent States are parties to it as of today (Croatia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), it is a well-established principle of international law that, even if a State has not ratified a treaty, it may be bound by one of its provisions in so far as that provision reflects customary international law, either codifying it or forming a new customary rule (see Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 66, ECHR 2010, and judgment of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases of 20 February 1969, § 71).
See also my concurring opinion joined by Judges Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Zagrebelsky and Popovic in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010), as well as the concurring opinon of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008-...).
The Court also reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 58, ECHR 2010).
Ses garanties ne valent que pour les droits que l'on peut dire, au moins de manière défendable, reconnus en droit interne, qu'ils soient ou non protégés de surcroît par la Convention (Roche précité, § 117, et Cudak c. Lituanie [GC], no 15869/02, § 45, 23 mars 2010).
EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 30604/07
MELIS c. GRECE
EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 50812/06
EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 20510/08
EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 10161/06
MARSCHALKO v. HUNGARY