Autriche du 16 juillet 1971, série A n° 13, p. 39, par. 94 ; arrêt König c. Allemagne du 28 juin 1978, série A n° 27, p. 30, par. 90 ; arrêt Neves e Silva c.

COURT'S CASE-LAW REFERRED TO 28.6.1978, König v. Germany; 23.6.1981, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium; 10.2.1983, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium; 22.4.1994, Saraiva de Carvalho v.

  D.H. arrêt König du 25 avril 1978, série A no 27, et arrêt Zimmermann et Steiner du 3 juillet 1983 série A no 66 ; décisions Nos 9345/81 et 9346/81 du 6.7.1982, Dores et Silveira c/Portugal, rapport

D.H., arrêt König du 28 juin 1978, série A n° 27, p. 29, par. 88).

König v Germany , judgment of 28   June 1978, Series   A no.   27). 28.

Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 33, para. 98).

Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 33, para. 98), i.e. on 26 March 1990 when the applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Cantonal Police of Basel-Landschaft of

Court HR, König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-30, para. 88, see also No. 19583/92, op. cit., p. 38 at p. 45).

Autriche du 16 juillet 1971 et König c. Allemagne du 28 juin 1978, série A n o 13, p. 39, par. 94, et n o 27, p. 30, par. 90). 3. Conclusion 41.

Greece (no. 2) judgment of 27 June 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1085, § 45, with references to the following judgments: König v.

Court HR, König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 33, § 98; Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 304, p. 25, § 62; Duclos v.

   As to whether the right is a "civil" right, the Court refers to its established precedents, which the Government, moreover, did not challenge (see, among other authorities, the König judgment

well as the defendant’s behaviour and what is at stake in the litigation for the plaintiff, in cases concerning proceedings brought before administrative courts in connection with civil rights (see the König

State, the Court is not bound to reject the claim put before it for just satisfaction (see the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 10 March 1972, Series A no. 14, pp. 8-9 and 10, §§ 16 and 20; the König

Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 29 et seq., paras. 88 et seq.).

the Court’s conclusions as to the ineffectiveness of the said remedies in the cases against Slovakia of Tám ((dec.), no. 50213/99, 1 July 2003) Kučera ((dec.), no. 48666/99, 4   November 2003), König

Slovakia (dec.), no. 48666/99, 4   November 2003 and König v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 39753/98, 13 May 2003).

practise medicine as a private practitioner is at stake give rise to "contestations (disputes) over civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (see, among other authorities, the König

On several occasions, the Court has affirmed the principle that these concepts are “autonomous”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, the König v.

König, lawyers practising in Berlin.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   a.