CEDHCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 juillet 1998
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-6841
- Date
- 29 juillet 1998
- Publication
- 29 juillet 1998
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 officielleViolation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. July 1998 Le Calvez v. France - 25554/94 Judgment 29.7.1998 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Reasonable time Length of proceedings for payment of sickness benefit and compensation for loss of salary brought against the State by a civil servant in the New Caledonian agricultural service who was on leave of absence: Article 6 § 1 applicable; violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability 1.   Whether there had been a “contestation” (dispute) over a “right” Question raised concerning applicant’s “right” to be paid sickness benefit when on leave of absence – had given rise to a “contestation” determined by Rennes Administrative Court and Nantes Administrative Court of Appeal, which had held that statutory condition of eligibility for such benefit had not been satisfied – outcome of proceedings decisive for right in question. 2.   Whether right was a “civil” one Disputes relating to recruitment, careers and termination of service of civil servants are as a general rule outside scope of Article 6 § 1 – provision nevertheless applicable where claim in issue relates to a purely or essentially economic right – right claimed was to be paid benefit following a period of sick-leave – effect on applicant’s economic rights – right therefore a “civil” one. Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (eight votes to one). B.   Compliance 1.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: preliminary claim to High Commissioner. End: proceedings still pending before Conseil d’Etat. Total: six years already. 2.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings Applicant’s conduct: not irreproachable. Conduct of national authorities: two years between application to Administrative Court and filing of High Commissioner’s pleading, eight months between filing of pleading and delivery of Administrative Court’s judgment without any preparatory measures being taken and three years in the Nantes Administrative Court of Appeal had exceeded a reasonable time. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: Anxiety caused by excessive length of proceedings: compensation awarded. B.   Costs and expenses: Claim allowed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant (unanimously).   © 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 Notes  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Date
- 29 juillet 1998
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-6841
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel