Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,24682
EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,24682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.10.2000 - 43440/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,24682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Oktober 2000 - 43440/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,24682)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,24682) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (66)Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 25.02.2000 - 29357/95

    Dieter Popp

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
    The reasonableness of the length of these proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicants' conduct and that of the competent authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the litigation (see the Süßmann judgment, cited above, p. 1172-73, § 48; the Pammel and Probstmeier judgments, cited above, §§ 60 and 55, respectively; and Gast and Popp v. Germany, no 29357/95, § 70, ECHR 2000).
  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
    The dispute as to the amount of the applicant's pension entitlement was of a pecuniary nature and undeniably concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46; the Massa v. Italy judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26, and the Süßmann judgment, cited above).
  • EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 14399/88

    MASSA v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
    The dispute as to the amount of the applicant's pension entitlement was of a pecuniary nature and undeniably concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46; the Massa v. Italy judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26, and the Süßmann judgment, cited above).
  • EKMR, 16.12.1974 - 5849/72

    MÜLLER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
    The Court recalls, however, that even though the rights stemming from the payment of contributions to the social insurance system, in particular the right to derive benefits from such a system - for instance in the form of a pension - can be asserted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (Eur. Comm. HR, no. 5849/72, Müller v. Austria Comm. Report, 1.10.1975, D.R. 3, p. 25; no. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.1985, D.R. 42, p. 229; Storkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no 39860/98, ECHR 1999, and Domalewski v. Poland, cited above).
  • EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

    SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
    The Court recalls, however, that even though the rights stemming from the payment of contributions to the social insurance system, in particular the right to derive benefits from such a system - for instance in the form of a pension - can be asserted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (Eur. Comm. HR, no. 5849/72, Müller v. Austria Comm. Report, 1.10.1975, D.R. 3, p. 25; no. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.1985, D.R. 42, p. 229; Storkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no 39860/98, ECHR 1999, and Domalewski v. Poland, cited above).
  • EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

    DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
    The Court therefore considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention read together with Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Gaygusuz judgment, cited above, §§ 39-41, and Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR, 2000).
  • EKMR, 04.03.1985 - 10671/83

    T. v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
    The Court recalls, however, that even though the rights stemming from the payment of contributions to the social insurance system, in particular the right to derive benefits from such a system - for instance in the form of a pension - can be asserted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (Eur. Comm. HR, no. 5849/72, Müller v. Austria Comm. Report, 1.10.1975, D.R. 3, p. 25; no. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.1985, D.R. 42, p. 229; Storkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no 39860/98, ECHR 1999, and Domalewski v. Poland, cited above).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

    XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

    The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, proceedings can come within the scope of Article 6 § 1 even if they take place before a constitutional court (see Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, § 26, Series A no. 254-B; Pauger v. Austria, 28 May 1997, § 46, Reports 1997-III; Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 48, Reports 1997-VI; Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 36, 3 March 2000; Klein v. Germany, no. 33379/96, § 26, 27 July 2000; Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Tričković v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, §§ 36-41, 12 June 2001; and Soffer v. the Czech Republic, no. 31419/04, §§ 31-32, 8 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 47169/99

    Überlange Dauer eines Verfassungsbeschwerde-Verfahrens

    Der Gerichtshof ruft auch in Erinnerung, dass seiner ständigen Rechtsprechung zufolge ein Verfahren unter Artikel 6 fällt, selbst wenn es vor einem Verfassungsgericht stattfindet (s. Rechtssache Kraska ./. Schweiz , Urteil vom 19. April 1993, Serie A Bd. 254-B, S. 48, Rdnr. 26, Pauger ./. Österreich , Urteil vom 28. Mai 1997, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1997-III, S. 894, Rdnr. 46, Pierre-Bloch ./. Frankreich , Urteil vom 21. Oktober 1997, Sammlung 1997-VI, S. 2222, Rdnr. 48, Krcmar und andere./. Tschechische Republik , Nr. 35376/97, Urteil vom 3. März 2000, Rdnr. 36, Klein ./. Deutschland , Nr. 33379/96, Urteil vom 27. Juli 2000, Rdnr. 26, Jankovic ./. Kroatien (Entsch.), Nr. 43440/98, 12. Oktober 2000, Trickovic ./. Slowenien , Nr. 39914/98, Urteil vom 12. Juni 2001, Rdnr. 36-41 und Diaz Aparicio ./. Spanien , Nr. 49468/99, Urteil vom 11. Oktober 2001).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 27458/06

    LAKICEVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

    The Court considers that their complaints naturally fall to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only (see, mutatis mutandis, Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Skórkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no 39860/98, 1 June 1999; and Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, 15 June 1999), which reads as follows:.

    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 v. Italy, nos.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht