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 ... (5)Zitiert selbst (36)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS AND DZIAUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  The words "other status" (and a fortiori the French "toute autre situation") have been given a wide meaning so as to include, in certain circumstances, military rank (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 72, Series A no. 22), or being a former KGB officer (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, §§ 53-62, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  Thus, that provision does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see, among other authorities, 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, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  Stummer v. Austria

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  The principles which apply generally in cases under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, 18 February 2009, and, more recently, Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, 7 July 2011).
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 51466/99

  Menschenrechte: Änderung in der Ruhegeldversorgung keine Diskriminierung i.S. der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  51466/99 and 70130/01, 2 February 2006).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  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, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  Carson and others v. United Kingdom

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension - whether or not conditional on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation has to be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98

  VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  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, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99

  ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 06.01.2005 - 58641/00

  HOOGENDIJK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99

  TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02

  NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
• EKMR, 16.12.1974 - 5849/72

  MÜLLER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01
• EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 40862/98

  Minderung des Vorruhestandsgeldes durch den Vertrag über die Herstellung der …
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00

  HOBBS, RICHARD, WALSH AND GEEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 52449/99

  KUNA v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 53367/99

  STOYANOVA AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6223/04

  BANFIELD c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 44096/05

  NOZHAROVA c. BULGARIE
• EKMR, 04.03.1985 - 10671/83

  T. v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 64100/00

  BLANCO CALLEJAS contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

  HASANI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 69136/01

  SAARINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 40064/98

  CREDIT BANK and OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 43189/98

  M.V. and U-M.S. v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 30.06.1993 - 21519/93

  KUHLMAN v. GERMANY
• EKMR, 27.05.1991 - 15376/89

  BEGING v. GERMANY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.11.2025 - 77396/14

  CONSTANTINOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  It should also be noted in that connection that the Court has on numerous occasions accepted the distinction that some Contracting States draw for pension purposes between civil servants and private employees (see Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04 and 8 others, § 117, 25 October 2011 and the citations therein).

  [12] This view of the domestic court is based on case-law of the Court (to which the domestic court refers, inter alia, Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04 and 8 other applications, § 84, 28 October 2011; Koufaki and ADEDY, cited above, § 33), according to which, as to pension rights, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, does not, as such, guarantee any right to a pension of a particular amount.

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  STEFANETTI v. ITALY and 7 other applications

  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

  [ENG]

  Further, where the amount of a benefit or pension is reduced or discontinued, this may constitute an interference with possessions which requires to be justified in the general interest (Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, judgment of 12 October 2004, ECHR 2004-IX; see also Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 10.02.2026 - 51173/19

  KARGOPOULOS v. GREECE

  The Fund was structured on the principle of solidarity (compare Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04 and 8 others, § 98, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 39084/10

  DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  2033/04 and 8 others, § 104, 25 October 2011; Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, § 160, 24 April 2012; and also Halil Adem Hasan v. Bulgaria, no. 4374/05, § 71, 10 March 2015), the domestic courts, at first instance and on appeal, remained entirely silent in its regard.