Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUDUMIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND SERBIA AND REMENOVIC AND MASOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KUDUMIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND SERBIA and 2 other applications

  Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  The Court reiterates that even though the entitlements stemming from a social security scheme providing for the payment of a welfare benefit, whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions - for instance in the form of a pension - fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 52442/99

  SCHWENGEL contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  In this respect, the change in the level of payments made in relation to the former JNA pensions after the move to the FBH Fund represented a method of integrating those pensions into the general pension system of the Federation (see, mutatis mutandis, Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, ECHR 2000; Jankovic, cited above; and Gauder v. Croatia (dec.), no. 45132/98, 21 June 2001).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  The Court reiterates that even though the entitlements stemming from a social security scheme providing for the payment of a welfare benefit, whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions - for instance in the form of a pension - fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2001 - 45132/98

  GAUDER v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  In this respect, the change in the level of payments made in relation to the former JNA pensions after the move to the FBH Fund represented a method of integrating those pensions into the general pension system of the Federation (see, mutatis mutandis, Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, ECHR 2000; Jankovic, cited above; and Gauder v. Croatia (dec.), no. 45132/98, 21 June 2001).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  At the same time, notwithstanding the terms of Article 13 read literally, the existence of an actual breach of another provision of the Convention (a "substantive" provision) is not a prerequisite for the application of Article 13 (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 64, Series A no. 28).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  Lastly, as regards the Article 13 complaint, the Court reiterates that that Article has been consistently interpreted by this Court as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 31, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28233/08

  Notwithstanding the difference in scope between those provisions, the meaning of this term in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was intended to be identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, §§ 55 and 56, ECHR 2009).