Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,49909
EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,49909)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.04.2009 - 38886/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,49909)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. April 2009 - 38886/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,49909)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,49909) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-b No violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (41)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 40832/98

    BELLET, HUERTAS ET VIALATTE contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    Where, however, the person concerned does not satisfy, or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of such benefits, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France, (dec.) no. 40832/98 27 April 1999).
  • EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

    DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    The same approach was followed by the Court itself in the case of Domalewski, in which it was noted that "the applicant's pecuniary rights stemming from the contributions paid into her pension scheme remained the same" and that "the applicant's right to derive benefits from the social insurance scheme was [not] infringed in a manner contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, especially as the loss of "veteran status" did not result in the essence of his pension rights being impaired (see Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; see also, Slavicinsky v. the Czech Republic (dec. ), no. 10072/05, 20 November 2006).
  • EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

    TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    The Court has already dealt with the issue of lustration proceedings in the Turek v. Slovakia case (no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
     
  • EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

    STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    It places no restriction on the Contracting States" freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security system, or to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any such scheme However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a welfare benefit - whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (Stec and Others v the United Kingdom, [GC], (dec.) no. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2006-).
  • EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 10072/05

    SLAVICINSKY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    The same approach was followed by the Court itself in the case of Domalewski, in which it was noted that "the applicant's pecuniary rights stemming from the contributions paid into her pension scheme remained the same" and that "the applicant's right to derive benefits from the social insurance scheme was [not] infringed in a manner contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, especially as the loss of "veteran status" did not result in the essence of his pension rights being impaired (see Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; see also, Slavicinsky v. the Czech Republic (dec. ), no. 10072/05, 20 November 2006).
  • EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 28356/95

    STYK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    It was observed that the 1991 Act was partly intended as a condemnation of the political role which the communist security service had played in repressing political opposition to the communist system and that such considerations of public policy, even if they resulted in the reduction of social insurance benefits, did not affect the property rights stemming from the social insurance system in a manner contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. I. (see Styk v. Poland (dec.), no. 28356/95, 16 April 1998; Szumilas v. Poland (dec.), no 35187/97, 1 July 1998; Bienkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 33889/97, 9 September 1998).
  • EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 35187/97

    SZUMILAS v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    It was observed that the 1991 Act was partly intended as a condemnation of the political role which the communist security service had played in repressing political opposition to the communist system and that such considerations of public policy, even if they resulted in the reduction of social insurance benefits, did not affect the property rights stemming from the social insurance system in a manner contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. I. (see Styk v. Poland (dec.), no. 28356/95, 16 April 1998; Szumilas v. Poland (dec.), no 35187/97, 1 July 1998; Bienkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 33889/97, 9 September 1998).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

    EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
    It further observes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in general in paragraph 1. For this reason it considers it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaint under the two provisions taken together (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 34, § 33; and also the judgment in Matyjek, cited above, §§ 53-54).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53080/13

    BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

    However, where the amount of a benefit is reduced or discontinued, this may constitute interference with possessions which requires to be justified (see Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 40; and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).

    Consequently, as most recently confirmed once again by the Court in Richardson v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) no. 26252/08, 10 April 2012, § 17), where "the person concerned does not satisfy, or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1" (emphasis added); the Court referred to the cases of Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France, (dec.) no. 40832/98, 27 April 1999, and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009.

  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

    MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

    They were simply a further aspect, or a further argument in support of, the complaint already set out in the application, namely, that the restriction of the applicant's right to liberty had been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania (dec.), no. 48107/99, 25 May 2004; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 30, 28 April 2009; and Mathloom v. Greece, no. 48883/07, § 39, 24 April 2012, and contrast Ekimdjiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47092/99, 3 March 2005; Cornea v. Romania (dec.), no. 13755/03, § 51, 15 May 2012; Kirlangiç v. Turkey, no. 30689/05, § 54, 25 September 2012; and Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, §§ 95-97, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.10.2020 - C-798/18

    Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) u.a. - …

    29 Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat entschieden, ein Eingriff im Sinne von Art. 1 des Zusatzprotokolls Nr. 1 zur EMRK könne vorliegen, wenn eine Sozialleistung gesenkt oder entzogen werde (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 28. April 2009, Rasmussen/Polen, CE:ECHR:2009:0428JUD003888605, § 71, und EGMR, 7. Juli 2011, Stummer/Österreich, CE:ECHR:2011:0707JUD003745202, § 82).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht