CEDHCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juin 2010
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-930
- Date
- 8 juin 2010
- Publication
- 8 juin 2010
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 officielleRemainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 131 June 2010 Poslu and Others v. Turkey - 6149/04, 6162/04, 6297/04 et al. Judgment 8.6.2010 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Six-month period to be calculated by reference to criteria specific to the Convention: inadmissible Facts – Following the privatisation of their company, the applicants lost their civil servant status. They brought various actions before the competent administrative courts with a view to obtaining compensation for the termination of their employment contracts, but to no avail. On appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance judgments. Law – Article 35 § 1: in application no.   6162/04, the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 19   June2003, which was the final domestic court decision, had been served on the applicant on 25   July2003. The applicant had lodged his application with the Court on 26   January 2004, more than six months after receiving notification of the final domestic court decision. It followed that the application had been lodged out of time and should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§   1 and   4. (See also Otto v.   Germany (dec.), no.   21425/06, 10   November 2009, Information Note no.   124) The Court found   © 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
- 8 juin 2010
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-930
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel