Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARKOVICS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1+13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARKOVICS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1+13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  Lastly, as to the applicants" complaint that there was no effective remedy available to them against the legislation in question, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see, among other authorities, Vallianatos, cited above, § 94; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 137, ECHR 2005-X; Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 114, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  Regarding this argument, the Court notes that, provided that the legislature chose a method that could be regarded as reasonable and suited to achieving the legitimate aim being pursued, it is not for the Court to say whether the legislation represented the best solution for dealing with the problem or whether the legislative discretion should have been exercised in another way (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98).
• EKMR, 12.07.1989 - 12947/87

  ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  It is to be observed that the contested measure was part of a whole range of measures implemented with the aim of reducing public spending (see Association of General Practitioners v. Denmark (dec.), no. 12947/87, 12 July 1989).

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not restrict a State's freedom to choose the type or amount of benefits that it provides under a social security scheme (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 53, ECHR 2006-VI), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 55, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66529/11

  N.K.M. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  The Court will therefore examine the issue under the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, subject to the specific rule concerning the payment of taxes contained in Article 1 in fine (see N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, § 45, 14 May 2013).
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  The Court does not consider that the abolition of the service pensions and their conversion into service allowances amounted to a "deprivation of possessions" within the meaning of the second sentence of the paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It is rather to be regarded as an interference with the applicants" right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph (see Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR - 19828/13 (anhängig)

  BÉRES v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  Application no. 19828/13 László BÉRES against Hungary.
• EGMR - 19829/13 (anhängig)

  AUGUSZTIN v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11

  Application no. 19829/13 Gábor AUGUSZTIN against Hungary.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN v. HUNGARY

  Par ailleurs, compte tenu de cette ample marge d'appréciation, il n'appartient pas à la Cour de rechercher si l'État aurait pu adopter d'autres types de mesures (voir, mutatis mutandis, Markovics et autres c. Hongrie (déc.), nos 77575/11 et 2 autres, § 39, 24 juin 2014).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19

  DOMENECH ARADILLA v. SPAIN

  They also noted that the States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation - particularly when establishing and regulating their respective national social security systems (see Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 113, and Markovics and other v. Hungary, nos. 77575/11 and 2 others, § 32 et seq., § 22, 24 June 2014); they further noted that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in no manner prevented regulatory changes to the amount of, or to the conditions for accessing benefits at any given time (see Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 24, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 75916/13

  Sparmaßnahme während Finanzkrise keine Eigentumsverletzung

  77575/11 and 2 others, § 39, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 10490/16

  HORVÁTH v. HUNGARY

  77575/11 and 2 others, §§ 34 and 42, 24 June 2014).