Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08, 56001/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 46286/09
- EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08, 56001/08
- EGMR, 30.01.2019 - 46286/09
- EGMR - 46286/09 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (17)
- EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94
ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
Thus, although the financial burden was not negligible, the reason had not been solely financial as in the cases of Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France ([GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, ECHR 1999-VII), and Scordino v. Italy ((no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V).The Court has repeatedly ruled that although the legislature is not prevented from regulating, through new retrospective provisions, rights derived from the laws in force, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude, except for compelling public-interest reasons, interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see, among many other authorities, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 112, Reports 1997-VII; and Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII).
- EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01
GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
Such schemes are an expression of a society's solidarity with its vulnerable members (see, mutatis mutandis, Goudswaard-Van der Lans v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75255/01, ECHR 2005-XI). - EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
The Contracting State enjoys a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Stec and Others, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-VI).
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25379/02
TWIZELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
The Court has previously held that the choice of a cut-off date when transforming social security regimes must be considered as falling within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to a State when reforming its social strategy policy (see Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008). - EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97
DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
Nor does it 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; Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X). - EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
JANKOVIC c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
Nor does it 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; Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X). - EGMR, 18.04.2002 - 39802/98
L.B. v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
Similarly, the right to receive a pension in respect of activities carried out in a State other than the respondent State is not guaranteed (see L.B. v. Austria (dec.), no. 39802/98, 18 April 2002). - EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99
SLIVENKO v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee as such any right to become the owner of property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II; and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35 (b), ECHR 2004-IX). - EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00
KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
Nor does it 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; Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X). - EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95
TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09
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 a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59, 8 December 2009). - EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 60796/00
CABOURDIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01
SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01
PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
- EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14
DA SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL
46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, §§ 42-48, 7 February 2012). - EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12
DA CONCEIÇÃO MATEUS AND SANTOS JANUÁRIO v. PORTUGAL
46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, §§ 42-48, 7 February 2012). - EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10
CICHOPEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, 7 February 2012, §§ 42-48). - EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 31228/08
TOMBESI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Elle a rappelé que dans l'affaire Maggio et autres c. Italie (nos 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 et 56001/08, §§ 62-64, 31 mai 2011), elle avait exclu l'existence d'une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 par rapport à un retraité qui, dans le cadre d'une harmonisation rétroactive du régime des retraites, avait perdu une partie substantielle de sa pension. - EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 55674/08
ROSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Elle a rappelé que dans l'affaire Maggio et autres c. Italie (nos 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 et 56001/08, §§ 62-64, 31 mai 2011), elle avait exclu l'existence d'une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 par rapport à un retraité qui, dans le cadre d'une harmonisation rétroactive du régime des retraites, avait perdu une partie substantielle de sa pension.