Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 77782/01 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,64694) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LUCZAK v. POLAND
Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 77782/01
- EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 77782/01
- EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 77782/01
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 77782/01
Referring to the admissibility decision in Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54ECHR 2005-...), the Government emphasised that there was a fundamental difference between protection of a legitimately acquired right to a certain welfare benefit on the one hand, and protection of a mere request to be admitted to a given social security scheme on the other.65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2005-...).
- EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97
WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 77782/01
Had it not been for the nationality condition, the applicant could have been admitted to the farmers" scheme and thus could make contributions to it and claim relevant benefits (mutatis mutandis, Gaygusuz v. Austria, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1142, § 40-41 and Willis v. United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 34, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 77782/01
It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, § 22). - EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 77782/01
It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, § 22).