practise medicine as a private practitioner, disciplinary proceedings give rise to “ contestations (disputes) over civil rights” within the meaning of Article   6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, König

    The Court will first address the question whether a right, in the autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see , mutatis mutandis , König v.

Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-30 paras. 88-89).

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, in particular, König

  25444/94, §   74, ECHR 1999 ‑ II; Frydlender, § 45, cited above; and König v. Germany , 28 June 1978, §   100, Series A no. 27).

that, although it has found the concept of “civil rights and obligations” to be autonomous, it has also held that, in this context, the legislation of the State concerned is not without importance (see König

  Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 34, para. 99;   Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 35 para. 80), i.e. the complexity of the case, the conduct

Germany , no. 23959/94, § 40, 20   December 2001; and König v. Germany , judgment of 28 June 1978 Series A no.27, § 98).

France , 23   October 1996, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ V) as the requirements of Article 6 § 1 are less onerous in these cases ( König v.

Adolf or he was "charged with a criminal offence" (see, mutatis mutandis, the Engel and others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, par. 82, and the König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A

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, inter alia , König

  Court H.R., König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43 and Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no.

In the König v.   Slovakia judgment (no.

  23959/94, §   40, 20   December 2001, and König v. Germany , judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, §   98).

applicant’s application for release of 25 September 2014 or the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal against the SCC’s decision of 11 November 2014 to grant that application (in this connection, see also König

interpreted solely by reference to the domestic law of the respondent State, but must be considered “autonomous” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, König

  Court H.R., König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27 paras. 86-95, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 1 October 1980, Series A no. 43 paras. 41-50 and the H judgment of 30 November

  Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27; Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97).

Germany , no. 23959/94, § 40, 20 December 2001, and König v.

light of the Convention must be determined by reference to the substantive content and effects of the right, and not only its legal classification under the domestic law of the State concerned (see König