Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRAZAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Partly struck out of the list;Partly inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BRAZAUSKIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 81114/17

  ÁDÁM AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  The Court's role, however, is not to assess and review in abstract the State's policy in this field or to rule on which interpretation of the domestic legislation is the most correct, but to consider the consequences that the authorities' decisions had for the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Ádám and Others v. Romania, nos. 81114/17 and 5 others, § 98, 13 October 2020, and Molla Sali, cited above, § 142, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  NAPOTNIK v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  More precisely, the Court must determine whether the reasons put forward by the authorities to justify the treatment applied to the applicant were relevant and sufficient (see, mutatis mutandis, Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 78, 20 October 2020).
• EGMR, 07.12.2007 - 59643/00

  KAFTAÏLOVA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  In the light of the above, and in view of the particular circumstances of the instant case, the Court considers that the matter regarding the applicant's complaint of not having been granted and paid the State annuity as the widow of President Algirdas Mykolas Brazauskas has been effectively resolved and that this part of the application should be struck out of the Court's list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 48, 7 December 2007).

 
• EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 76286/14

  PARÍZEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  The Court first reiterates that an entitlement to free accommodation may be capable of attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Pa?™ízek v. the Czech Republic, no. 76286/14, § 41, 12 January 2023).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  40832/98 and 2 others, 27 April 1999]), or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009) where the conditions had changed before the applicant became eligible for a specific benefit (see Richardson [v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012]).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 48357/07

  AZIENDA AGRICOLA SILVERFUNGHI S.A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  Noting that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law and to decide on issues of constitutionality (see R & L, s.r.o., and Others v. the Czech Republic, nos. 37926/05 and 4 others, § 115, 3 July 2014), and having regard to the wide margin of appreciation given to the States in the field of social policy (see, mutatis mutandis, Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07 and 3 others, § 103, 24 June 2014, with further references), the Court does not find the Constitutional Court's findings to be arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
• EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 40832/98

  BELLET, HUERTAS ET VIALATTE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  40832/98 and 2 others, 27 April 1999]), or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009) where the conditions had changed before the applicant became eligible for a specific benefit (see Richardson [v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012]).
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  P.C. v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  For this reason, the domestic courts' analysis of the nature of such an interest cannot be overlooked (see P.C. v. Ireland, no. 26922/19, § 48, 1 September 2022).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 26252/08

  RICHARDSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  40832/98 and 2 others, 27 April 1999]), or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009) where the conditions had changed before the applicant became eligible for a specific benefit (see Richardson [v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012]).
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 62304/12

  KARDISAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  Therefore, the Court cannot share the Government's contention that it was as a result of the applicant's oversight that her right to the State annuity had not been implemented, or the damage caused by the Government's failure to act had not been compensated (compare and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Kardisauskas v. Lithuania, no. 62304/12, § 49, 7 July 2015).