Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DA SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL

  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Inadmissible

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2016, 1307

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010).

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to decide what is "in the public interest" on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI).

• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  In particular, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not create a right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  If, however, a Contracting State has legislation in force which provides 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 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, ECHR 2009, with further references, in particular to Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.

 
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  KOUFAKI ET ADEDY c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  57665/12 and 57657/12, § 31, 7 May 2013).
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  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, § 19, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant's personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right to property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Lakicevic and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I; Huc v. Romania and Germany (dec.), no. 7269/05, § 64, 1 December 2009; and Koufakis and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011, with further references in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009, and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 15, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 7269/05

  Erhoben von F. H. gegen Rumänien und Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I; Huc v. Romania and Germany (dec.), no. 7269/05, § 64, 1 December 2009; and Koufakis and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09

  MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  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, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  PANFILE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 52442/99

  SCHWENGEL contre l'ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 30517/96

  AUNOLA v. FINLAND

• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63066/14

  Schuldenschnitt in Griechenland: Die Umschuldung war legal

  La Cour rappelle en outre qu'elle a déjà construit une jurisprudence relative à la marge d'appréciation des États dans le contexte de la crise économique qui sévit en Europe depuis 2008 et plus particulièrement en relation avec des mesures d'austérité prises par voie législative ou autre et visant des couches entières de la population (Valkov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 2033/04, 25 octobre 2011, Frimu et 4 autres requêtes c. Roumanie (déc.), nos 45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 et 45588/11, § 40, 7 février 2012, Panfile c. Roumanie (déc.), no 13902/11, 20 mars 2012, Koufaki et ADEDY c. Grèce (déc.), nos 57665/12 et 57657/12, 7 mai 2013, N.K.M. c. Hongrie, no 66529/11, 14 mai 2013, da Conceição Mateus et Santos Januário c. Portugal (déc.), nos 62235/12 et 57725/12, 8 octobre 2013, Savickas c. Lituanie (déc.), no 66365/09, 15 octobre 2013, et da Silva Carvalho Rico c. Portugal (déc.), no 13341/14, 1er septembre 2015).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  62235/12 and 57725/12, § 22, 8 October 2013; da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), § 37, no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015).

  The case at hand does not concern either the permanent, complete loss of the applicant's pension entitlements (compare and distinguish Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 123; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009; and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX) or the reduction thereof (compare da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X), but rather the suspension of his monthly pension payments (see Panfile and Lakicevic and Others, both cited above).

• VGH Bayern, 13.04.2017 - 3 ZB 15.1614

  Kein Zulassungsgrund für die Berufung bei Nichtanerkennung von …

  1.1.6 Soweit der Kläger im Schriftsatz vom 15. Februar 2017 auf den Vorlagebeschluss des Verwaltungsgerichts München vom 18. November 2014 (M 21 K 12.2042 - juris) zur Frage der Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Ruhensregelung in § 56 Abs. 2 BeamtVG verweist bzw. mit Schriftsatz vom 22. September 2016 auf die Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte vom 1. September 2015 (Az. 13341/14, NVwZ 2016, 1307-1309) zur Eingriffsmöglichkeit in gesetzliche Ansprüche auf Sozialleistungen Bezug nimmt, so haben diese Entscheidungen - unabhängig davon, dass das klägerische Vorbringen gemäß § 124a Abs. 4 Satz 4 VwGO verspätet ist - erkennbar keinen direkten Bezug zur Sache.

 
• EuG, 15.10.2020 - T-389/19

  Coppo Gavazzi/ Parlament

  Insoweit schränken die angefochtenen Entscheidungen das Eigentumsrecht der Kläger ein (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 1. September 2015, Da Silva Carvalho Rico/Portugal, CE:ECHR:2015:0901DEC001334114, §§ 31 bis 33 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  The right to an old-age pension or any social benefit in a particular amount is not included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001; Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 37, 18 November 2004; and Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, § 30, 1 September 2015).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 58598/21

  FREIRE LOPES c. PORTUGAL

  Vu le contexte économique (à cet égard, voir les constatations faites dans la décision Da Silva Carvalho Rico c. Portugal (déc.), no 13341/14, §§ 43-44, 1er septembre 2015) et la situation financière défaillante de la BES au moment des faits, la Cour reconnaît d'emblée que l'État, au travers de la BdP, disposait d'une marge d'appréciation pour déterminer les mesures à prendre au niveau tant préventif que réparatoire envers la BES.
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 71148/10

  PHILIPPOU v. CYPRUS

  More recently, the Court has observed in general (see Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015) and Stefanetti and Others, cited above, § 59, 15 April 2014), that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension was likely to breach Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Apostolakis, cited above, and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX) and that, conversely, the imposition of a reduction which it considers to be reasonable and commensurate would not (see, for example, among many other authorities, Da Silva Carvalho Rico, and Valkov and Others, both cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and, a contrario, Stefanetti and Others, cited above).
• EGMR - 17949/20 (anhängig)

  SICLARI v. ITALY

  62235/12 and 57725/12, § 22, 8 October 2013; Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, § 37, 1 September 2015; Zegarac and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 54805/15 and 10 other applications, §§ 81-83, 17 January 2023)?.
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 71418/14

  DA CUNHA FOLHADELA MOREIRA v. PORTUGAL

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to decide what is "in the public interest" on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI; and Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, § 37, 1 September 2015).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 34302/16

  PADILLA NAVARRO v. SPAIN

  In Krajnc (cited above), where the reduction had been half of the applicant's disability benefit, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1; conversely, the infringement was rejected in Mockiené v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 75916/13, 4 July 2017), where there had been a reduction of 15% of a service pension, and in da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015), where there had been a reduction of 4.6% of the applicant's total annual social security benefits.