Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 17972/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,16193
EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 17972/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16193)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.02.2012 - 17972/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16193)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Februar 2012 - 17972/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16193)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16193) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)

  • EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

    GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the "lawfulness" requirement contained in Article of Protocol No. 1 cannot normally be construed as preventing the legislature from controlling the use of property or otherwise interfering with pecuniary rights via new retrospective provisions regulating continuing factual situations or legal relations anew (see Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others, cited above, § 104, 24 June 2014; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 81, 14 February 2012; Huitson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 50131/12, §§ 31-35, 13 January 2015; and Khoniakina, cited above, § 74).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

    STEFANETTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

    The Court observes that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009) and that, conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, for example, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic, cited above).

    The deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009); conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).

  • EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09

    SAVICKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

    On this last point the Court has already held that the notion of "public interest" is necessarily extensive and that the Court, finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is "in the public interest" unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 91, ECHR 2005-VI; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 78, 14 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08

    KHONIAKINA v. GEORGIA

    In so far as the above-mentioned complaint by the applicant can also be understood as challenging the amendment of 23 December 2005 as an attempt to thwart the general interpretation adopted by the domestic courts in the course of her first pension dispute regarding comparable statutory regulations with retrospective effect, the Court has already ruled on previous occasions that statutory pension regulations are liable to change, that the legislature cannot be prevented from regulating, via new retrospective provisions, pension rights derived from the laws in force and that a final judicial decision on a comparable matter cannot be validly used as a shield against such changes in the future (see, mutatis mutandis, Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 42, 14 February 2012; see also Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
  • EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 71148/10

    PHILIPPOU v. CYPRUS

    More recently, the Court has observed in general (see Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015) and Stefanetti and Others, cited above, § 59, 15 April 2014), that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension was likely to breach Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Apostolakis, cited above, and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX) and that, conversely, the imposition of a reduction which it considers to be reasonable and commensurate would not (see, for example, among many other authorities, Da Silva Carvalho Rico, and Valkov and Others, both cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and, a contrario, Stefanetti and Others, cited above).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 9457/09

    BABICH AND AZHOGIN v. RUSSIA

    The Court has previously taken the view that it is conceivable that a judgment loses its legal force when the legislative framework changes (see Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 41, 18 January 2007; see also, mutatis mutandis, Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, §§ 74 and 75, 19 June 2012, and Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 42, 14 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 28182/15

    VICA LTD v. MALTA

    In relation to the lawfulness requirement, the Court also notes that it has in previous cases acknowledged that laws with retrospective effect which were found to constitute legislative interference still conformed to the lawfulness requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07 and 3 others, § 104, 24 June 2014, and Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 81, 14 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 1700/08

    BAKRADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    As to the applicants" complaint that the Act on State Compensation retrospectively and thus unlawfully amended their pension entitlements, the Court recalls that it already ruled on many previous occasions that statutory pension regulations are liable to change and that the legislature cannot be prevented from regulating, via new retrospective provisions, pension rights derived from the laws in force (see Khoniakina, cited above, § 74 and 75; and also Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 42, 14 February 2012; Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 43331/12

    VELIKODA v. UKRAINE

    The Court has already noted that statutory pension regulations are liable to change and a judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future (see Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 42, 14 February 2012, and Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht