ECHR Basic distinction in law of many member States of the Council of Europe between civil servants and employees governed by private law – Court has accordingly held that disputes relating to recruitment, careers and termination of service of civil servants are as a general rule outside scope of Article 6 ss 1.
Applicants sought recognition of existence of permanent contract of employment (Fusco) or judicial review of one or more decisions of administrative authorities assigning them to a particular staff category (remaining cases) – they thus raised disputes related to their recruitment and careers which did not concern a ‘civil’ right within meaning of Article 6 ss 1 – payment of difference in salary directly dependent on prior finding that administrative authorities had acted unlawfully (Trombetta).
Citations:
25838/94, [1997] ECHR 57, 25837/94
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Employment
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263135
