Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAVIV v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAVIV v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Raviv v. Austria

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 26266/05

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 79, ECHR 2009-...; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010-...and Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 83, 7 July 2011).

  If, however, a State does decide to create a special scheme, as Austria did when it approved the 2002 amendment to the General Social Security Act, it must do so in a manner which is compatible with Article 14 of the Convention (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 53, ECHR 2006-VI).

• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 26266/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 26266/05

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 79, ECHR 2009-...; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010-...and Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 83, 7 July 2011).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 26266/05

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 79, ECHR 2009-...; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010-...and Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 83, 7 July 2011).

• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  DAMJANAC v. CROATIA

  In view of the principle that there is no right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to receive a social security benefit or pension payment of any kind or amount, unless national law provides for such entitlement (see, for example, Raviv v. Austria, no. 26266/05, § 61, 13 March 2012), the central issue which remains for the Court to determine is whether the applicant satisfied all the requirements under the relevant Croatian pension legislation at the time, generating a property right to receive payment of his pension in Serbia.

  The Government submitted, relying on the Court's case-law in Raviv v. Austria, no. 26266/05, 13 March 2012, that the applicant had never paid any contributions to a pension fund in Croatia and therefore he was not in the same position as other pension beneficiaries who had been paying contributions in Croatia.