CEDHCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 mai 2017
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-11561
- Date
- 30 mai 2017
- Publication
- 30 mai 2017
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleInadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 208 June 2017 Bilewicz v. Poland (dec.) - 53626/16 Decision 30.5.2017 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Failure to have recourse to labour courts: inadmissible Facts – The applicant was a prosecutor at the Prosecutor General’s Office. Following the introduction of new legislation*, he was informed that he was to be transferred to a regional office. Before the European Court, the applicant complained that he had no right to institute court proceedings against the Prosecutor General’s decision** to transfer him to a lower post. Law – The Supreme Court had examined a case of a prosecutor who had been affected by the same measure as the applicant and had claimed that judicial review of the Prosecutor General’s decisions had been excluded. In that case, the Supreme Court had found that such a decision, which entailed a change of the conditions of service, could be reviewed by a labour court in accordance with the general rule*** that the labour courts had jurisdiction to hear claims related to a prosecutor’s service. The applicant had failed to have recourse to a remedy provided by the domestic law as indicated by the Supreme Court. It would have been inconsistent with the subsidiarity principle to accept his application for substantive examination without requiring him first to submit the substance of his Convention claim to the domestic authorities. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies).   *   The Prosecution Service Act ( Prawo o prokuraturze ) and the Prosecution Service (Introductory Provisions) Act ( Przepisy wprowadzające ustawę – Prawo o prokuraturze ).. **   Taken under section   36 of the Introductory Provisions Act. ***   Section 101(1) of the Prosecution Service Act.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information NotesCitations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Date
- 30 mai 2017
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-11561
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel