Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 33705/09

In so far as this category of prisoners had been excluded by the application of the Prisoners" Rights and Treatment Act, drawing on this Court's decision in the case of Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 39794/98, §§ 70-74, ECHR 2002-VII), the applicant could not rely on the protection offered by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, the respondent State enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in formulating policies which would have a considerable financial impact.

In this connection, in the absence of any existing legislation, the belief that, in the future, the authorities may enact legislation recognising applicants" alleged periods of work in prison as insurance years cannot be regarded as a form of "legitimate expectation" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaus and Iouri Kiladzé v. Georgia, no. 7975/06, §§ 55-62, 2 February 2010; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 49, ECHR 2004-IX; and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002-VII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 33705/09

65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2005-X; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 74, ECHR 2009; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010).

Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 33705/09

65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2005-X; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 74, ECHR 2009; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010).

Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 33705/09

It thus introduces a general prohibition of discrimination (Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 53, ECHR 2009).