Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DA CONCEIÇÃO MATEUS AND SANTOS JANUÁRIO v. PORTUGAL

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

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• verfassungsblog.de (Kurzinformation)

  Muss Straßburg hinter der Eurokrise zusammenkehren?

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Pensionskürzungen wegen Euro-Krise gebilligt

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and to Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010).

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports 1997-VII, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI).

• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  If, however, a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension - whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, with further references, in particular to Stec v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and to Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09

  MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, §§ 42-48, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, 4 January 2005; Huc v. Romania and Germany (dec.), no. 7269/05, § 64, 1 December 2009; and Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 52442/99

  SCHWENGEL contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant's personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Lakicevic and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  KOUFAKI ET ADEDY c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  57665/12 and 57657/12, § 31, 7 May 2013).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  PANFILE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute an interference with possessions that needs to be justified (see Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011 with further references, in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009, and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no 13902/11, § 15, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

  SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  By the same logic, it cannot be interpreted as securing a right to a pension of a particular amount (see Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.) no. 39860/98, 1st June 1999).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant's personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Lakicevic and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 7269/05

  Erhoben von F. H. gegen Rumänien und Deutschland
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63066/14

  Schuldenschnitt in Griechenland: Die Umschuldung war legal

  La Cour rappelle en outre qu'elle a déjà construit une jurisprudence relative à la marge d'appréciation des États dans le contexte de la crise économique qui sévit en Europe depuis 2008 et plus particulièrement en relation avec des mesures d'austérité prises par voie législative ou autre et visant des couches entières de la population (Valkov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 2033/04, 25 octobre 2011, Frimu et 4 autres requêtes c. Roumanie (déc.), nos 45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 et 45588/11, § 40, 7 février 2012, Panfile c. Roumanie (déc.), no 13902/11, 20 mars 2012, Koufaki et ADEDY c. Grèce (déc.), nos 57665/12 et 57657/12, 7 mai 2013, N.K.M. c. Hongrie, no 66529/11, 14 mai 2013, da Conceição Mateus et Santos Januário c. Portugal (déc.), nos 62235/12 et 57725/12, 8 octobre 2013, Savickas c. Lituanie (déc.), no 66365/09, 15 octobre 2013, et da Silva Carvalho Rico c. Portugal (déc.), no 13341/14, 1er septembre 2015).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  STEFANETTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  62235/12 and 57725/12 concerning the impact of the reduction of some subsidies on the applicants" financial situation and living conditions).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 75916/13

  MOCKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  62235/12 and 57725/12, § 18 in fine, 8 October 2013, and the cases cited therein).

 
• EGMR - 17949/20 (anhängig)

  SICLARI v. ITALY

  62235/12 and 57725/12, § 22, 8 October 2013; Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, § 37, 1 September 2015; Zegarac and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 54805/15 and 10 other applications, §§ 81-83, 17 January 2023)?.
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 39631/13

  GRIGORIOU-KANARI c. GRÈCE

  Enfin, selon l'intéressée, il ressort de la décision Da Conceição Mateus et Santos Januário c. Portugal (nos 62235/12 et 57725/12, 8 octobre 2013) que la Cour accepte que les États prennent des mesures restrictives pour faire face à une crise économique seulement lorsque ces mesures sont limitées dans le temps et dans leur étendue.
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 71418/14

  DA CUNHA FOLHADELA MOREIRA v. PORTUGAL

  62235/12 and 57725/12, § 18, 8 October 2013).