Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 27047/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,26098) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OCHENSBERGER v. AUSTRIA
Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 27047/95
In this respect the Commission recalls that for the purpose of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention a difference in treatment is discriminatory only if it has no objective and reasonable justification (Eur. Court H.R., Schmidt judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, para. 24). - EKMR, 27.05.1991 - 15376/89
BEGING v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 27047/95
However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees a person who has paid contributions to a special insurance system the right to derive benefits from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount unless there is a substantive reduction affecting the very substance of the right (cf. Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report 1.10.75, paras. 30-33, D.R. 3 p. 25; No. 7624/76, Dec. 6.7.77, D.R. 19, p. 100; No. 15408/89, Dec. 27.5.91, unpublished; No. 15376/89, Dec. 27.5.91, unpublished). - EKMR, 27.05.1991 - 15408/89
B. v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 27047/95
However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees a person who has paid contributions to a special insurance system the right to derive benefits from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount unless there is a substantive reduction affecting the very substance of the right (cf. Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report 1.10.75, paras. 30-33, D.R. 3 p. 25; No. 7624/76, Dec. 6.7.77, D.R. 19, p. 100; No. 15408/89, Dec. 27.5.91, unpublished; No. 15376/89, Dec. 27.5.91, unpublished).
- EKMR, 08.10.1991 - 15464/89
P. v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 27047/95
The Commission considers that the difference in treatment between persons who reach retirement age before and after the entry into force of new provisions of law and the fact that such provisions are only applied to cases which occur after this date is based on an objective and reasonable criterion (see No. 9707/82, Dec. 6.10.82, D.R. 31, p. 223; No.15464/89, Dec. 8.10.91, unpublished). - EKMR, 06.07.1977 - 7624/76
X. c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 27047/95
However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees a person who has paid contributions to a special insurance system the right to derive benefits from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount unless there is a substantive reduction affecting the very substance of the right (cf. Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report 1.10.75, paras. 30-33, D.R. 3 p. 25; No. 7624/76, Dec. 6.7.77, D.R. 19, p. 100; No. 15408/89, Dec. 27.5.91, unpublished; No. 15376/89, Dec. 27.5.91, unpublished). - EKMR, 06.10.1982 - 9707/82
X. c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 27047/95
The Commission considers that the difference in treatment between persons who reach retirement age before and after the entry into force of new provisions of law and the fact that such provisions are only applied to cases which occur after this date is based on an objective and reasonable criterion (see No. 9707/82, Dec. 6.10.82, D.R. 31, p. 223; No.15464/89, Dec. 8.10.91, unpublished).