Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  B. v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2005-X).

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate 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" (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006).

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008-).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  Thlimmenos ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  34-35, § 10, Series A no. 6, and Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, § 22).
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, § 22).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen, Pedersen u.a. ./. Dänemark

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  Further, the Government submitted that such a distinction was not based upon any "personal characteristic or status", which was an essential requirement of Article 14 of the Convention (Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  The Court has consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28342/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  Replacing the right to payment an individual might have had retrospectively with a liability to repay an amount involved an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  The Court has consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  The Court has consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN v. HUNGARY

  Pour des exemples de cette approche plus nuancée tirés de la propre jurisprudence de la Cour, voir Stummer c. Autriche [GC], no 37452/02, §§ 90-95, CEDH 2011, Carson et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 42184/05, §§ 83-90, CEDH 2010, B. c. Royaume-Uni, no 36571/06, 14 février 2012, Giavi c. Grèce, no 25816/09, §§ 50-53, 3 octobre 2013, Valkov et autres, précité, § 117, et Stubbings et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 22 octobre 1996, §§ 73-74, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-IV.
• EGMR, 11.02.2021 - 4893/13

  CASARIN c. ITALIE

  Il ressort en l'espèce que, à la différence de ce qui a été observé dans d'autres situations où l'erreur découlait d'une omission du bénéficiaire (B. c. Royaume-Uni, no 36571/06, § 39, 14 février 2012), l'erreur d'appréciation a été commise par l'INPS, cette instance ayant appliqué les dispositions relatives à la procédure de mobilité interservices concernant la requérante selon une interprétation par la suite sanctionnée comme erronée par les juridictions internes (Romeva, précité, § 68, et Čakarević, précité, §§ 79 et 80).
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 32141/10

  ROMEVA v. 'THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

  It is not disputed between the parties that the Fund's decision of 18 October 2007, which retroactively divested the applicant of the retirement pension that she had been receiving since May 2000, amounted to an interference with her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, among other authorities, Fábián, cited above, § 62, and B. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36571/06, §§ 36 and 41, 14 February 2012).

• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 75328/12

  DZABIROV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  The ex nunc suspension of the payment of this pension amounted to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant's possessions (B. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36571/06, §§ 36 and 41, 14 February 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 38462/14

  KOMSO v. CROATIA

  The Court does not find it necessary to decide whether the benefits the applicant received constituted a "possession" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (compare to B. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36571/06, § 39, 14 February 2012) because this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below (see paragraphs 38-39).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 27473/09

  GRANSORT v. POLAND

  Therefore, the Court cannot assume that the applicant in the present case did not act in good faith and that the payment of the benefit resulted from her failure to report the change in her circumstances (compare and contrast Kusina v. Poland (dec.), no. 28589/05, § 35, 9 April 2013 and B. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36571/06, § 39, 14 February 2012).