Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  B. v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2005-X).

  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" (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  34-35, § 10, Series A no. 6, and Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  The Court has consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008-).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  Further, the Government submitted that such a distinction was not based upon any "personal characteristic or status", which was an essential requirement of Article 14 of the Convention (Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, § 22).
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, § 22).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  The Court has consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  The Court has consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28342/95

  BRUMARESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  Replacing the right to payment an individual might have had retrospectively with a liability to repay an amount involved an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  For existing examples of this more nuanced/circumstantiated/detailed approach in the Court's own case-law see Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§ 90-95, ECHR 2011; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 83-90, ECHR 2010; B. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36571/06, 14 February 2012; Giavi v. Greece, no. 25816/09, §§ 50-53, 3 October 2013; Valkov and Others, cited above, § 117; and Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, §§ 73-74, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV.
• EGMR, 11.02.2021 - 4893/13

  CASARIN c. ITALIE

  Il ressort en l'espèce que, à la différence de ce qui a été observé dans d'autres situations où l'erreur découlait d'une omission du bénéficiaire (B. c. Royaume-Uni, no 36571/06, § 39, 14 février 2012), l'erreur d'appréciation a été commise par l'INPS, cette instance ayant appliqué les dispositions relatives à la procédure de mobilité interservices concernant la requérante selon une interprétation par la suite sanctionnée comme erronée par les juridictions internes (Romeva, précité, § 68, et Cakarevic, précité, §§ 79 et 80).