Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 57028/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56369) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KLEIN v. AUSTRIA
Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 57028/00
- EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 57028/00
- EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 57028/00
- EGMR, 05.10.2016 - 57028/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76
DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 57028/00
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked, both on its own and together with Article 14, and a separate breach of the substantive Article has been found, it is not generally necessary for the Court to also consider the case under Article 14. However, the position is reversed if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45). - EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 57028/00
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked, both on its own and together with Article 14, and a separate breach of the substantive Article has been found, it is not generally necessary for the Court to also consider the case under Article 14. However, the position is reversed if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45). - EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6223/04
BANFIELD c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 57028/00
The Court has stated in the past that the reduction or the forfeiture of a retirement pension acts neither as a control of use nor a deprivation of property, but that it falls to be considered under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 (see Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, ECHR 2005-XI with further references).