Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 2033/04
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04, 171/05, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 2041/05, 24729/04
• EGMR - 2033/04

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (36)

• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  In that regard, it would also be important to verify whether an applicant's right to derive benefits from the social security scheme in question has been infringed in a manner resulting in the impairment of the essence of his pension rights (see Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 39 in fine; and Wieczorek, cited above, § 57 in fine).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  OGNYAN ASENOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  It follows that applications for judicial review of the NSSI's decisions were not an effective remedy that the applicants had to use (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 42 in limine, ECHR 1999-V; Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, § 86, 27 November 2007; and Ognyan Asenov v. Bulgaria, no. 38157/04, § 32, 17 February 2011).
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00

  HOBBS, RICHARD, WALSH AND GEEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  It can - and in fact did - only make recommendations in that regard (see paragraphs 58, 59 and 61 above and, mutatis mutandis, Hobbs v. the United Kingdom, no. 63684/00, 18 June 2002; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 40, ECHR 2008-...; and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 150, 16 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 44096/05

  NOZHAROVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  44096/05 et al., 25 August 2009).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  The Court has, in line with its earlier case-law on that point (see Brozicek v. Italy, 19 December 1989, § 34, Series A no. 167; Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 20, Series A no. 257-B; Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 24, Series A no. 315-B; and Immobiliare Saffi, cited above, § 42 in fine), already held that the possibility to request the bodies or the officials entitled to bring such proceedings to do so is not an effective remedy for the purposes of Articles 13 or 35 § 1 of the Convention, because the persons concerned cannot directly compel the institution of proceedings before the Constitutional Court, whereas under this Court's settled case-law a remedy can be considered effective only if the applicant is able to initiate the procedure directly (see Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 82, ECHR 2009-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 64100/00

  BLANCO CALLEJAS contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  It has even countenanced pension caps similar to the one at issue (see Blanco Callejas v. Spain (dec.), no. 64100/00, 18 June 2002, and Buchheit and Meinberg v. Germany (dec.), nos.
• EKMR, 04.03.1985 - 10671/83

  T. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, among other authorities, Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission's report of 1 October 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 3, p. 25; T. v. Sweden, no. 10671/83, Commission decision of 4 March 1985, DR 42, p. 229; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts); Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, § 36, 22 October 2009; Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 57, 8 December 2009; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and Maggio and Others, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, among other authorities, Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission's report of 1 October 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 3, p. 25; T. v. Sweden, no. 10671/83, Commission decision of 4 March 1985, DR 42, p. 229; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts); Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, § 36, 22 October 2009; Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 57, 8 December 2009; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and Maggio and Others, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 40862/98

  Minderung des Vorruhestandsgeldes durch den Vertrag über die Herstellung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, among other authorities, Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission's report of 1 October 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 3, p. 25; T. v. Sweden, no. 10671/83, Commission decision of 4 March 1985, DR 42, p. 229; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts); Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, § 36, 22 October 2009; Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 57, 8 December 2009; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and Maggio and Others, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 43189/98

  M.V. and U-M.S. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  They can therefore hardly be regarded as being made to bear an excessive and disproportionate burden, or as having suffered an impairment of the essence of their pension rights (see, mutatis mutandis, M.V. and U-M.S. v. Finland (dec.), no. 43189/98, 28 January 2003; Saarinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 69136/01, 28 January 2003; Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, ECHR 2005-XI; Laloyaux v. Belgium (dec.), no. 73511/01, 9 March 2006; and Wieczorek, § 71; Hasani; and Maggio and Others, § 62, all cited above; and contrast Kjartan Ásmundsson, §§ 43-45, and Apostolakis, §§ 39-42, both cited above).
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

  HASANI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 52449/99

  KUNA v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98

  VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 51466/99

  Menschenrechte: Änderung in der Ruhegeldversorgung keine Diskriminierung i.S. der …
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99

  ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  POULAIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6223/04

  BANFIELD c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 16.12.1974 - 5849/72

  MÜLLER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 40064/98

  CREDIT BANK and OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01

  PETKOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  BROZICEK v. ITALY
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 69136/01

  SAARINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.01.2005 - 58641/00

  HOOGENDIJK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 30.06.1993 - 21519/93

  KUHLMAN v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99

  TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 53367/99

  STOYANOVA AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02

  NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
• EKMR, 27.05.1991 - 15376/89

  BEGING v. GERMANY

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  STEFANETTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 25, 25 October 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 26252/08

  RICHARDSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011).