Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUSZKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 49151/07

  Muñoz Diaz ./. Spanien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2005-X and Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, no. 49151/07, § 44, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  However, this is not the only facet of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States, without an objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV; Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  IWASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  In particular, given that decisions to enact laws concerning social insurance benefits will commonly involve consideration of economic and social issues, the Court finds it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one and will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is "in the public interest" unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, among many other authorities, Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 30614/06, § 43, 26 July 2011, and Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98

  RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  42949/98 and 53134/99, § 35, 10 May 2007; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 48420/10, 15 January 2013; and Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 288, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97

  MAZUREK c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  For the purposes of Article 14, a difference of treatment is discriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, §§ 46 and 48, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  The Court has held that all principles which apply generally in cases concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to welfare benefits (Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, ECHR 2009ibid., § 54).
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 30078/06

  KONSTANTIN MARKIN c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts in issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-II; Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 42, ECHR 2006-VIII; and Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 124, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57101/10

  RIBAC v. SLOVENIA

  According to the Court's established case-law, the principles which apply generally in cases concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to welfare benefits (see Andrejeva, cited above, § 77, and more recently, Ruszkowska v. Poland, no. 6717/08, § 48, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 74734/14

  SAUMIER c. FRANCE

  La Cour a en particulier jugé que les États disposent d'une large marge d'appréciation dans le domaine de l'assurance sociale (voir, notamment, Ruszkowska c. Pologne, no 6717/08, §§ 52-53, 1er juillet 2014).