Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Exception préliminaire retenue (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Non-violation de l'art. 14+P1-1 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CARSON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CARSON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 14+P1-1
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Carson and others v. United Kingdom
[02.09.2009]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 42184/05
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
Wird zitiert von ... (13) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
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).65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-X; Andrejeva, cited above, § 74).
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
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, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00
Andrejeva ./. Lettland
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
The Court observes at the outset that, as with all complaints of alleged discrimination in a welfare or pensions system, it is concerned with the compatibility with Article 14 of the system, not with the individual facts or circumstances of the particular applicants or of others who are or might be affected by the legislation (see, for example, Stec and Others, cited above, §§ 50-67; Burden, cited above, §§ 58-66; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, §§ 74-92, ECHR 2009-...).
- EKMR, 17.01.1996 - 23285/94
GUDMUNDSSON v. ICELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
In addition, the Commission examined complaints about discrepancies in the law applying in different areas of a single Contracting State (Lindsay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8364/78, Commission decision of 8 March 1979, Decisions and Reports 15, p. 247; Gudmundsson v. Iceland, no. 23285/94, Commission decision of 17 January 1996, unreported). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
Thus, in previous cases the Court has examined under Article 14 the legitimacy of alleged discrimination based, inter alia, on domicile abroad (Johnston v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, §§ 59-61) and registration as a resident (Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, §§ 31-34). - EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85
DARBY v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
Thus, in previous cases the Court has examined under Article 14 the legitimacy of alleged discrimination based, inter alia, on domicile abroad (Johnston v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, §§ 59-61) and registration as a resident (Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, §§ 31-34). - EKMR, 08.03.1979 - 8364/78
LINDSAY and Others v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
In addition, the Commission examined complaints about discrepancies in the law applying in different areas of a single Contracting State (Lindsay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8364/78, Commission decision of 8 March 1979, Decisions and Reports 15, p. 247; Gudmundsson v. Iceland, no. 23285/94, Commission decision of 17 January 1996, unreported). - EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98
RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
Any welfare system, to be workable, may have to use broad categorisations to distinguish between different groups in need (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, § 39, 10 May 2007).
- EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 31045/10
THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
In the sphere of social and economic policy, which must be taken to include a country's industrial relations policy, the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, ECHR 2010). - EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07
BAH c. ROYAUME-UNI
The scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, 16 March 2010). - EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 27458/06
LAKICEVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension - whether or not conditional on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation has to be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010-...).Therefore, the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing such policies should be a wide one, and its judgment as to what is "in the public interest" should be respected unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, for example, Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, 16 March 2010; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 83, 18 February 2009; as well as Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 61, 15 September 2009).
- EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06
J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-X; Carson and Others [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010- ).There is a margin of appreciation for States in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment, and this margin is usually wide when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy (see most recently Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, 16 March 2010).
- EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 19750/13
GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
It has already held on several occasions that where a suggested remedy did not in fact offer reasonable prospects of success, for example in the light of settled domestic case-law, the fact that the applicant did not use it is no bar to admissibility (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 27, Series A no. 332, and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 58, ECHR 2010). - EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04
VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension - whether or not conditional on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation has to be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010-...). - EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04
SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
In those circumstances, the Court fails to see how the remaining applicants could have also challenged decision no. 9, as they risked obtaining a similar result (see, mutatis mutandis, Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 56 and 58, ECHR 2010-...). - EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31925/08
GRUDIC v. SERBIA
However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension - whether or not conditional on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation has to be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010-...). - EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10
DAMJANAC v. CROATIA
The Government submitted, relying on the Court's case-law in Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010, and Grudic v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, 17 April 2012, that in the period in which the payment of the applicant's pension had been stopped the applicant did not have a right to payment of his pension, and therefore did not have possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They stressed that the applicant was a YPA military pensioner and that the payment of his pension abroad would only have been possible under the relevant domestic law if there had been an international treaty or a reciprocal agreement. - EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11
BRITISH GURKHA WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
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 Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, ECHR 2010 and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI). - EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 65283/11
TURAN ET ERGÜN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17
MEMEDOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 44284/10
BANOVIC v. CROATIA