Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CICHOPEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and to Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010).

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI Carson, cited above, § 61; and Andrejeva, cited above, § 83).

• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  If, however, a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension - whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, with further references, in particular to Stec v. United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant's personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see, among many other authorities, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, §§ 41-42, 22 October 2009; Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 45; Valkov and Others, cited above, § 97; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos.

• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and to Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute interference with possessions that needs to be justified (see Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011 with further references, in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009; and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no 13902/11, § 15, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant's personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see, among many other authorities, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, §§ 41-42, 22 October 2009; Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 45; Valkov and Others, cited above, § 97; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 52442/99

  SCHWENGEL contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant's personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see, among many other authorities, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, §§ 41-42, 22 October 2009; Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 45; Valkov and Others, cited above, § 97; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09

  MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, 7 February 2012, §§ 42-48).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  PANFILE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute interference with possessions that needs to be justified (see Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011 with further references, in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009; and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no 13902/11, § 15, 20 March 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

  This selective approach is difficult to explain (compare Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 15189/10, 14 May 2013, §§ 107-111).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  15189/10 and others, § 137, 14 May 2013; da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  BIELI?ƒSKI v. POLAND and 22 other applications

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, §§ 68-72, 14 May 2013).

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, §§ 63-87, 14 May 2013.

• EGMR, 14.10.2025 - 33274/22

  KŁUCINSKA-GŁUSZCZAK v. POLAND

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, §§ 68-72, 14 May 2013).

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, 14 May 2013, further asserted that the application should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  [ENG]

  15189/10 and others, §§ 143, 14 May 2013).
• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 22588/08

  SORO v. ESTONIA

  70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005; and Zickus v. Lithuania, no. 26652/02, 7 April 2009) as well as lack of access to the information on the basis of which the persons" collaboration with former secret services was established (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, 24 April 2007) or reduction of pensions of the persons concerned (see Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.) no. 15189/10 and other applications, 14 May 2013).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  15189/10 and 1, 627 other applications, § 143, 14 May 2013).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 7023/07

  [ENG]

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, § 128, 14 May 2013).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 69424/16

  DENYSIUK v. POLAND

  15189/10 and others, § 153, 14 May 2013).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21838/10

  STEFANETTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  La Cour a ainsi déjà estimé qu'une réduction de moins de la moitié des pensions des requérants n'était pas déraisonnable (Maggio et autres c. Italie, nos 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 et 56001/08, 31 mai 2011, § 62, Cataldo et Biraghi, précitées ; voir également Cichopek c. Pologne et 1627 autres requêtes (déc.), no 15189/10, 14 mai 2013, § 152).
• EGMR - 28660/23 (anhängig)

  BIERNACKA v. POLAND and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 13266/16

  SZWEBLIK v. POLAND