Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15960) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHONIAKINA v. GEORGIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
Whilst Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot restrict a State's freedom to choose the type or amount of benefits that it provides under a social security scheme (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 53, ECHR 2006-VI), it is also important to verify whether an applicant's right to derive benefits from the social security scheme in question has been infringed in a manner resulting in the impairment of the essence of his or her pension rights (see Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 57, 8 December 2009).Turning to the present case, the Court considers that the applicant's right to receive a life-long retirement pension in an amount equal to her final salary and adjustable in accordance with changes in the salary of serving Supreme Court judges under the original version of section 36 of the Supreme Court Act, as that provision stood at the time of her retirement on 4 May 2000, created a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for instance, Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39 ECHR 2005-X).
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
His involvement in the second dispute could hardly be said to have been conducive to the level of confidence that the highest judicial body in the country should normally inspire in society (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86, and Castillo Algar v. Spain, 28 October 1998, § 32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 65411/01
SACILOR LORMINES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
In so far as the lawfulness of the application of the same amendment of 23 December 2005 to the applicant's pension rights was at the core of her second dispute, I consider that Judge S."s participation for a second time in the examination of the same issue breached the relevant impartiality requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Kleyn and Others, cited above, § 200; Sacilor-Lormines v. France, no. 65411/01, § 73, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Meznaric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, § 32).
- EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94
ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
Amongst other arguments, the applicant affirmed, referring to the case of Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France ([GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, ECHR 1999-VII), that legislative interference retroactively affecting a civil right was incompatible with the Convention. - EGMR, 23.11.2000 - 25701/94
Konstantin II.
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, amongst many other authorities, The Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, §§ 79 and 82, ECHR 2000-XII). - EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 40862/98
Minderung des Vorruhestandsgeldes durch den Vertrag über die Herstellung der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and also Sulcs, cited above, § 26), concludes that the discontinuation of the adjustment requirement in relation to the applicant's special retirement benefit was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. - EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98
KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public and above all in the parties to proceedings (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, §§ 191 and 194, ECHR 2003-VI). - EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00
KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
Referring to paragraphs 39 and 45 of the Court's judgment in the case of Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland (no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX), the appellate court stated that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not guarantee the right to receive a pension of a particular amount. - EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute interference with possessions that needs to be justified (see, for instance, Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009). - EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02
STUMMER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
Indeed, the principles which apply generally in cases under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions (see, as a recent authority, Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, 7 July 2011). - EGMR, 06.09.2017 - 40765/02
APOSTOL CONTRE LA GÉORGIE
- EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12
KOUFAKI ET ADEDY c. GRÈCE
The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 70, 19 June 2012). - EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
SAVICKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 70, 19 June 2012). - EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 20006/08
ÜSTÜNER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05
STURUA v. GEORGIA
As regards the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraph 21 above), the Court reiterates that it has already found the lodging of an individual constitutional complaint in Georgia to be an ineffective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention, mainly on account of the Constitutional Court's inability to set aside individual decisions by the public authorities or courts which directly affect complainants" rights (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 35-46, ECHR 2006-XIV; Mumladze v. Georgia, no. 30097/03, § 37, 8 January 2008; and Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 59, 19 June 2012). - EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 570/11
VIAROPOULOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
Un tel équilibre n'est pas respecté si la personne concernée a dû subir une charge individuelle excessive (Khoniakina c. Géorgie, no 17767/08, § 70, 19 juin 2012). - EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 57864/17
A.D. AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
As regards the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it has already found the lodging of an individual constitutional complaint in Georgia to be an ineffective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention, mainly on account of the Constitutional Court's inability, the legal situation which is currently still in force, to set aside individual decisions by the public authorities or courts which directly affect complainants" rights (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 35-46, ECHR 2006-XIV; Mumladze v. Georgia, no. 30097/03, § 37, 8 January 2008; and Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 59, 19 June 2012). - EGMR - 22552/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
For more details of this case, including those concerning a subsequent set of pension proceedings in the course of which the Supreme Court overturned a number of rulings of the above-mentioned judgment of 21 February 2006, see Khoniakina v. Georgia (no. 17767/08, communicated by the Court on 8 April 2009).