Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IWASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X).

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52).

• EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

  SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  Moreover, the Court attaches importance to the fact that the social insurance benefits enjoyed by Mr Iwaszkiewicz originated from a privileged status which has been, and still is, perceived as a special honour (see Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V and Skórkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999).
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  Moreover, the Court attaches importance to the fact that the social insurance benefits enjoyed by Mr Iwaszkiewicz originated from a privileged status which has been, and still is, perceived as a special honour (see Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V and Skórkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999).

 
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  Such schemes are an expression of a society's solidarity with its vulnerable members (see Goudswaard-Van der Lans v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75255/01, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  Where the amount of a benefit is reduced or discontinued, this may constitute an interference with possessions which requires justification (see Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 40, and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  The requisite fair balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  They have been described as follows (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98, and also Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 51, ECHR 2000-VI):.

• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 38775/14

  KRAJNC v. SLOVENIA

  That was not because he no longer met the relevant eligibility criteria (compare and contrast Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, §§ 67-74, 8 December 2009, and Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 30614/06, § 56, 26 July 2011), but because of changes in the law (see, mutatis mutandis, Lakicevic and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos. 27458/06 and 3 others, § 70, 13 December 2011, and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 44, ECHR 2004-IX) which were applicable to those who had either become disabled after 1 January 2003 or whose disability had worsened after that date (see section 397 of the 1999 Act, cited in paragraph 25 above, and the Supreme Court's position, cited in paragraph 28 above).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08

  RUSZKOWSKA v. POLAND

  In particular, given that decisions to enact laws concerning social insurance benefits will commonly involve consideration of economic and social issues, 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, among many other authorities, Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 30614/06, § 43, 26 July 2011, and Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  WOZNIAK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  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 public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, 17 October 2002, § 85, Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX; and Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 30614/06, § 43, 26 July 2011).