Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TWIZELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25379/02

  65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 53 and 54, ECHR 2005-...).

  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 the Stec and Others, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98

  RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25379/02

  The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's judgment in the cases of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV and Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007.
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25379/02

  The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's judgment in the cases of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV and Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007.

• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09

  MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  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, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  SHINDLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  That the applicant may personally have preserved a high level of contact with the United Kingdom and have detailed knowledge of that country's day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them does not render the imposition of the fifteen-year rule disproportionate: while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009; Allen and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5591/07, § 66, 6 October 2009; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, cited above, § 79; and paragraph 103 above.
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  ALLEN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, the Court does not consider that the absolute nature of the rule and the absence of discretion in its application is necessarily inconsistent with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009).