Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PANFILE v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  Among these, especially relevant for the present case is the fact that this provision does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 55, 31 May 2011), nor the right to continue to be paid a salary of a particular amount (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 94, ECHR 2007-II), it being entirely at the State's discretion to determine what benefits are to be paid to its employees out of the State's budget (see Kechko v. Ukraine, no. 63134/00, § 23, 8 November 2005).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 44232/11

  MIHAIES c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  At the outset, the Court reiterates that the principles which apply generally in cases under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions (see Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, 7 July 2011) or to salaries (see, among many others, MihÇŽies v. Romania and Sentes v. Romania (dec.), no. 44232/11; 44605/11, 6 December 2011).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  At the outset, the Court reiterates that the principles which apply generally in cases under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions (see Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, 7 July 2011) or to salaries (see, among many others, MihÇŽies v. Romania and Sentes v. Romania (dec.), no. 44232/11; 44605/11, 6 December 2011).

 
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  The Court reiterates that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

  Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14. It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that this distinction is discriminatory (see Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004).
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 52449/99

  KUNA v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  Furthermore, the Court considers that States enjoy quite a wide margin of appreciation in regulating their social policy (see Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X and Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  Furthermore, the Court considers that States enjoy quite a wide margin of appreciation in regulating their social policy (see Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X and Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  A wide margin is usually allowed to the State under the Convention in respect of general measures of economic or social strategy (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2006-VI).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  He contended that in this regard the present case fell to be distinguished from the case with which the Government sought to compare it (Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012), in that in Romania the legislative measure prohibiting the simultaneous receipt of a State-paid pension and a salary acquired through State employment had been taken at the height of the financial crisis, and had been lifted when that crisis had abated.

  45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 and 45588/11, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).

  The applicant's right to an old-age pension in that case stemmed from special legislation on military personnel (see Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 3, 20 March 2012).

  See, of particular interest for the present case, Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 28, 20 March 2012: "... the two categories of persons can hardly be regarded as being in an analogous or relevantly similar situation within the meaning of Article 14, since the essential distinction, relevant to the context in which the impugned measures were taken, is that they draw their incomes from different sources, namely a private budget and the State budget respectively.

• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63066/14

  Schuldenschnitt in Griechenland: Die Umschuldung war legal

  La Cour rappelle en outre qu'elle a déjà construit une jurisprudence relative à la marge d'appréciation des États dans le contexte de la crise économique qui sévit en Europe depuis 2008 et plus particulièrement en relation avec des mesures d'austérité prises par voie législative ou autre et visant des couches entières de la population (Valkov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 2033/04, 25 octobre 2011, Frimu et 4 autres requêtes c. Roumanie (déc.), nos 45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 et 45588/11, § 40, 7 février 2012, Panfile c. Roumanie (déc.), no 13902/11, 20 mars 2012, Koufaki et ADEDY c. Grèce (déc.), nos 57665/12 et 57657/12, 7 mai 2013, N.K.M. c. Hongrie, no 66529/11, 14 mai 2013, da Conceição Mateus et Santos Januário c. Portugal (déc.), nos 62235/12 et 57725/12, 8 octobre 2013, Savickas c. Lituanie (déc.), no 66365/09, 15 octobre 2013, et da Silva Carvalho Rico c. Portugal (déc.), no 13341/14, 1er septembre 2015).
• EuGH, 13.06.2017 - C-258/14

  Florescu u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 143 AEUV - …

  Des Weiteren bezweckt das Gesetz Nr. 329/2009, die öffentlichen Ausgaben unter den außergewöhnlichen Umständen einer globalen Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise zu begrenzen (vgl. in diesem Sinne Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, 20. März 2012, 1onel Panlife/Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2012:0320DEC001390211, § 21).

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/1 and 45588/11, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Roumania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  KOUFAKI ET ADEDY c. GRÈCE

  2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, 25 October 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania, cited above, § 40) or to a salary of a particular amount (see Panfile v. Romania (dec.), 13902/11, § 18, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 22386/19

  VALVERDE DIGON v. SPAIN

  45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/1 and 45588/11, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19

  DOMENECH ARADILLA AND RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ v. SPAIN

  The Court finds it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one and will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is "in the public interest" unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, mutatis mutandis, The former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 87, ECHR 2000-XII; Wieczorek, cited above, § 59; Frimu and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11 and 4 others, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  DA SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL

  2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011, with further references in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009, and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 15, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 56928/19

  VALIULLINA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Moreover, and as evidenced by the Court's long-standing practice, this assessment must be based on elements of an objective nature (see, for example, Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 86-90, ECHR 2010; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008; Frantzeskaki and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 57275/17, 12 February 2019; and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012), which excludes from their scope factors that are not objectively verifiable, such as presumed intentions, untested fears or mere suppositions (see, in particular, Konstantin Markin, cited above, §§ 114-116 and 133, and Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, no. 17484/15, § 52, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09

  SAVICKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has also held that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a salary of a particular amount (see Panfile v. Romania (dec.), 13902/11, § 18, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  DA CONCEIÇÃO MATEUS AND SANTOS JANUÁRIO v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 57265/08

  DUMITRU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 57664/08

  DUMITREAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  CICHOPEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 50408/15

  VERES AND KOCJANCIC v. SLOVENIA