Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19, 30807/20   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2023,424
EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19, 30807/20 (https://dejure.org/2023,424)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.01.2023 - 32667/19, 30807/20 (https://dejure.org/2023,424)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Januar 2023 - 32667/19, 30807/20 (https://dejure.org/2023,424)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2023,424) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DOMENECH ARADILLA AND RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ v. SPAIN

    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (29)

  • EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 8263/15

    BACZÚR v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    They argued that, according to the Court's well-established case-law, the right to receive a pension from the social security system, as long as it was provided for by law, constituted a property right and fell under the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 116, 13 December 2016; Baczúr v. Hungary, no. 8263/15, 7 March 2017; Wessels-Bergervoet v. the Netherlands, no. 34462/97, ECHR 2002-IV; and Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

    Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d.

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 61. The Court has repeatedly stated that when more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III) and can select that which is most appropriate in his or her case (see Fabris and Parziale v. Italy, no. 41603/13, §§ 49-59, 19 March 2020; O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 110-11, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 176, 25 June 2019).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 53068/08

    FEDULOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    It places no restriction on the Contracting States' freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme (see Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 36, 26 June 2014, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10; Kolesnyk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 57116/10, §§ 89 and 91, 3 June 2014; Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 4519/11, §§ 34, 37-43, 48, 3 June 2014; and Fedulov v. Russia, no. 53068/08, § 66, 8 October 2019).
  • EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 41603/13

    FABRIS ET PARZIALE c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 61. The Court has repeatedly stated that when more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III) and can select that which is most appropriate in his or her case (see Fabris and Parziale v. Italy, no. 41603/13, §§ 49-59, 19 March 2020; O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 110-11, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 176, 25 June 2019).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

    KARAKO v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 61. The Court has repeatedly stated that when more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III) and can select that which is most appropriate in his or her case (see Fabris and Parziale v. Italy, no. 41603/13, §§ 49-59, 19 March 2020; O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 110-11, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 176, 25 June 2019).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 57116/10

    KOLESNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    It places no restriction on the Contracting States' freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme (see Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 36, 26 June 2014, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10; Kolesnyk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 57116/10, §§ 89 and 91, 3 June 2014; Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 4519/11, §§ 34, 37-43, 48, 3 June 2014; and Fedulov v. Russia, no. 53068/08, § 66, 8 October 2019).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

    D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    This is only the case, however, if such policy or measure has no "objective and reasonable" justification (see, among other authorities, Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 91, 24 May 2016; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 161, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 57325/00, §§ 175 and 184-85, ECHR 2007-IV).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 4519/11

    FAKAS v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    It places no restriction on the Contracting States' freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme (see Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 36, 26 June 2014, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10; Kolesnyk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 57116/10, §§ 89 and 91, 3 June 2014; Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 4519/11, §§ 34, 37-43, 48, 3 June 2014; and Fedulov v. Russia, no. 53068/08, § 66, 8 October 2019).
  • EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 27940/07

    TUNNEL REPORT LIMITED c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    Indeed, where an issue that is of general interest is at stake, it is incumbent on the public authorities to act in good time, and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Tunnel Report Limited v. France, no. 27940/07, § 39, 18 November 2010, and Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2), no. 66610/09, § 42, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

    NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
    Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 61. The Court has repeatedly stated that when more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III) and can select that which is most appropriate in his or her case (see Fabris and Parziale v. Italy, no. 41603/13, §§ 49-59, 19 March 2020; O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 110-11, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 176, 25 June 2019).
  • EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

    GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 68385/10

    SUKHANOV AND ILCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 72552/01

    Rechtmäßigkeit der Entziehung des im Rahmen der Bodenreform erworbenen

  • EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

    WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

    Budweiser-Streit

  • EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

    RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  • EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

    Opuz ./. Türkei

  • EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

    DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 48921/13

    CAKAREVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 72203/01

    RISSMANN, HÖLLER et LOTH contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  • EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 41237/14

    Italien muss Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt entschädigen

  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 33056/17

    TKHELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

    CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

    PANFILE v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

    Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  • EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 40832/98

    BELLET, HUERTAS ET VIALATTE contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 55974/16

    TUNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht