11577/06, §   75, 22   October 2013, and König v.   Slovakia , no. 39753/98, §   19, 20   January 2004). 35.

before having recourse to a   court, the proceedings before the administrative body are to be included when calculating the length of the civil proceedings for the purposes of Article   6 (see König

The notion of “civil rights and obligations” has an autonomous meaning independent of domestic classification ( König v.

Nonetheless, the case-law provides a number of guidelines on the subject (see, among other authorities, König v.   Germany (Article 50), judgment of 10 March 1980, Series A no. 36, pp.

The term “right” must nevertheless be given an autonomous interpretation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia , König v. Germany , judgment of 28 June 1986, Series A no. 27, pp.

Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 31-32, paras. 91- 95; Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, pp. 14-16, paras. 32-36; Pudas judgment of 27 October 1987,

König v.

The Court has furthermore held that the domestic courts should consider the possibility of having copies made in order to avoid delays caused by the despatch of the case-file (see König v.

In criminal matters the period to be taken into account covers the whole of the proceedings in question, including appeal proceedings (see König v.

  Court H.R., König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27, p. 36 para. 104).   4.

However, this decision must be proportionate having regard to the special circumstances of the case (see König v.

The Court has found in several cases that only the character of the right is relevant (see, inter alia, the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 30, para. 90 in fine). 4.

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

procedure before having recourse to a court, the proceedings before the administrative body are to be included when calculating the length of the civil proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 (see König

that disciplinary proceedings, in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake give rise to “contestations” (disputes) over civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see König

The case-law had established that the Convention institutions took an autonomous, objective view of whether a matter was civil and placed reliance on the “character of the right at issue” (see the König

The Court reiterates that it has consistently stressed the autonomy of the concept of “civil rights and obligations” (see, among other authorities, König v.

Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a religious community, Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft, three Austrian nationals, Martin David, Christoph Leisegang, Erich Cibulka and one German national, Ute König

The Court has held that "the concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to the domestic law of the respondent State" (see the König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series

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, König v.