Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMAER AND VAN WILLIGEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  "No objective and reasonable justification" means that the distinction in issue does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or that there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (Sejdic and Finci, § 42; see also, among many other authorities, Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-VI, and Stummer, cited above, § 87).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009:.
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  More generally, and in relation to all these complaints, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts, as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Het Financieele Dagblad B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 577/11, 28 June 2011; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11

  HET FINANCIEELE DAGBLAD B.v. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  More generally, and in relation to all these complaints, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts, as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Het Financieele Dagblad B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 577/11, 28 June 2011; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  More generally, and in relation to all these complaints, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts, as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Het Financieele Dagblad B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 577/11, 28 June 2011; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C).
• EuGH, 14.10.2010 - C-345/09

  van Delft u.a. - Soziale Sicherheit - Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1408/71 - Titel III …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  The Court of Justice of the European Union gave its preliminary ruling (case C-345/09, J.A. van Delft, J.C. Ramaer, J.M. van Willigen, J.F. van der Nat, C.M. Janssen and O. Fokkens v. College voor Zorgverzekeringen) on 14 October 2010.
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  The Court has already drawn attention to the difference between a hope of securing an asset, however understandable that hope may be, and a legitimate expectation, which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision (see, mutatis mutandis, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic [GC] (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002-VII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 49, ECHR 2004-IX; and Anheuser-Busch Inc.
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  The Court has gone so far as to recognise as an "asset", and therefore a "possession" in the sense of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, a claim under civil law (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  It applies also to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Article of the Convention, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide (see, as a recent authority among many others, Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 81, ECHR 2011).

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  BORGES DE BRITO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, § 49, Series A no. 193; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-XII; and as a recent example, Ramaer and Van Willigen v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 34880/12, § 91, 23 October 2012).