Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEFANETTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STEFANETTI v. ITALY and 7 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21855/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10, 21870/10
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21838/10

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 40862/98

  Minderung des Vorruhestandsgeldes durch den Vertrag über die Herstellung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  The Court observes that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009) and that, conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, for example, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic, cited above).

  The deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009); conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 52449/99

  KUNA v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  In all of these cases, and other similar ones, the Court endeavours to assess all the relevant elements of the case against a specific background (see, as other examples, amongst others, Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts) concerning the reduction of the applicant's pension rights under an additional pension scheme, and Da Conceiçao Mateus and Santos Januario v. Portugal (dec.), nos.

  In all of these cases, and other similar ones, the Court endeavoured to assess all the relevant elements of the case against a specific background (for another example see, amongst other authorities, Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).

• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6223/04

  BANFIELD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  In proceeding in this way the Court has found that even reductions of 65%, as substantial as that may be, did not in the specific circumstances of the case upset the said fair balance in the very exceptional context of a punishment of a convicted and dismissed policeman (see Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, ECHR 2005-XI concerning the forfeiture of part of the applicant's pension after his dismissal from the police force after a conviction).

  Proceeding in this way, the Court found that even a reduction of 65%, as substantial as that might be, did not in the specific circumstances of the case upset the said fair balance (see Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, ECHR 2005-XI).

• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  The Court observes that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009) and that, conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, for example, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic, cited above).

  The deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009); conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

  The deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009); conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

  The deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009); conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  Pensionskürzungen wegen Euro-Krise gebilligt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  62235/12 and 57725/12 concerning the impact of the reduction of some subsidies on the applicants" financial situation and living conditions).
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  Such schemes are an expression of a society's solidarity with its vulnerable members (see, mutatis mutandis, Goudswaard-Van der Lans v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75255/01, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee as such any right to become the owner of property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II; and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35 (b), ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  The requisite fair balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 60796/00

  CABOURDIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.04.2002 - 39802/98

  L.B. v. AUSTRIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  All the relevant elements of the case will have to be taken in account (see Stefanetti and Others v. Italy, nos. 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21822/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10, and 21870/10, § 59, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 71148/10

  PHILIPPOU v. CYPRUS

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Stefanetti and Others v. Italy, nos. 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21822/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10, and 21870/10, § 52, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR, 09.07.2020 - 6561/10

  BUSSIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  21838/10 and 7 others, §§ 38-44, 15 April 2014), and will in any event be addressed in this judgment in respect of the remaining applicants.