Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELLET, HUERTAS ET VIALATTE contre la FRANCE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 40832/98

  Certes, il peut entrer en jeu même sans un manquement à leurs exigences et, dans cette mesure, il possède une portée autonome, mais il ne saurait trouver à s'appliquer si les faits du litige ne tombent pas sous l'empire de l'une au moins desdites clauses (cf. notamment arrêts Karlheinz Schmidt c. Allemagne du 18 juillet 1994, série A n° 291-B, p. 32, § 22 et arrêt van Ralte c. Pays-Bas du 21 février 1997, Rec. 1997-I, p. 184 § 33).

• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  Consequently, as most recently confirmed once again by the Court in Richardson v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) no. 26252/08, 10 April 2012, § 17), where "the person concerned does not satisfy, or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1" (emphasis added); the Court referred to the cases of Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France, (dec.) no. 40832/98, 27 April 1999, and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009.
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  D'après la jurisprudence des organes de la Convention, le versement de cotisations à un fonds de pension peut, dans certaines circonstances, donner naissance à un droit patrimonial, qui peut être affecté par la manière dont les ressources du fonds sont réparties (Bellet, Huertas et Vialatte c. France (déc.), nos 40832/98, 40833/98 et 40906/98, 27 avril 1999, et Skorkiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 39860/98, 1er juin 1999).
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  BRAZAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  40832/98 and 2 others, 27 April 1999]), or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009) where the conditions had changed before the applicant became eligible for a specific benefit (see Richardson [v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012]).

 
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19

  DOMENECH ARADILLA AND RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ v. SPAIN

  Where the person concerned does not satisfy (see Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), no. 40832/98, § 5, 27 April 1999), or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009), as long as the conditions had changed before the applicant became eligible for a specific benefit (see the above-cited cases of Richardson, § 17, and Béláné Nagy, § 86).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Where, however, the person concerned does not satisfy, or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of such benefits, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France, (dec.) no. 40832/98 27 April 1999).
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 22386/19

  VALVERDE DIGON v. SPAIN

  Where the person concerned does not satisfy (see Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), no. 40832/98, § 5, 27 April 1999), or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009), as long as the conditions had changed before the applicant became eligible for a specific benefit (see Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012, and Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 86).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 69424/16

  DENYSIUK v. POLAND

  40832/98 and 2 others, 27 April 1999, and Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  RAMIZ JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Where, however, the person concerned does not satisfy, or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of such benefits, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), no. 40832/98 27 April 1999; Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012; and Damjanac v. Croatia, no. 52943/10, § 86, 24 October 2013).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 26252/08

  RICHARDSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Where, however, the person concerned does not satisfy, or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France, (dec.) no. 40832/98 27 April 1999; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 52119/08

  KOKURKHAYEV v. RUSSIA

  40832/98 and 2 others, 27 April 1999), there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 8647/09

  KOKURKHAYEV AND KOKURKHAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 53155/09

  CHERBIZHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 44052/05

  SKROK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 25409/04

  CAYTAS v. TURKEY