Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2022,13496
EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11 (https://dejure.org/2022,13496)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.06.2022 - 49270/11 (https://dejure.org/2022,13496)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Juni 2022 - 49270/11 (https://dejure.org/2022,13496)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,13496) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

    Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-general;(Art. 37-1) Striking out applications;(Art. 37-1-c) Continued examination not justified;No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SAVICKIS ET AUTRES c. LETTONIE

    Radiation du rôle (Art. 37) Radiation du rôle-général;(Art. 37-1) Radiation du rôle;(Art. 37-1-c) Poursuite de l'examen non justifiée;Non-violation de l'article 14+P1-1 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 al. 1 du ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (55)Zitiert selbst (28)

  • EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

    Andrejeva ./. Lettland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    The question of the aggregate periods of employment outside Latvia prior to 1991 with respect to persons not holding Latvian citizenship had to be resolved by means of international agreements, and Latvia should not be required to assume the obligations of another State (for a translation of the Constitutional Court's main arguments, see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 37, ECHR 2009).

    They also noted that the conclusions made by the Court in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], (no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009) were applicable to every "permanently resident non-citizen" of Latvia.

    The relevant international-law context has been explained in detail in the brilliant and powerful dissenting opinion of Judge Ziemele in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009).

    Introduction 1. To our regret, we cannot agree with the majority that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In our opinion, after engaging fully with the 2011 judgment of the Latvian Constitutional Court in accordance with good judicial dialogue, the Court should nevertheless have confirmed its ruling in Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009) and found that in this case too there has been a violation of Article 14.

    The present judgment reverses the Court's judgment in Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009), which was based on similar facts.

  • EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

    STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X) it had abandoned the distinction between contributory and non-contributory benefits for the purposes of the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government's argument that, from the standpoint of public international law, Latvia had not inherited the rights and obligations of the former Soviet Union as regards welfare benefits, was found to be misconceived in the instant case, as the Latvian State had decided of its own accord to pay pensions to individuals in respect of periods of employment outside its territory, thereby creating a sufficiently clear legal basis in its domestic law.

    65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X, quoted in Andrejeva, cited above, § 79, in turn quoted in paragraph 121 of the present judgment).

    Among other areas, this general rule applies also in pension matters (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2006-VI, and Jurcic v. Croatia, no. 54711/15, § 64, 4 February 2021).

  • EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

    J.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 1 other application

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    While the appropriateness of a measure is indeed a necessary condition for its proportionality (see Rasmussen, cited above, § 41, and J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, §§ 99 and 104, 24 October 2019), the question in this case is whether the impugned difference in treatment was an excessive means to achieve the stated aim.

    Although the margin of appreciation accorded to States in the context of general measures of economic or social policy is, in principle, wide, given their ability to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds and their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, such measures must nevertheless be implemented in a manner that does not violate the prohibition of discrimination as set out in the Convention and complies with the requirement of proportionality (see J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, § 88, 24 October 2019; Luczak, cited above, § 52; Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, § 115, 5 September 2017, with further references).

  • EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

    BRITISH GURKHA WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    In this context, we note that the majority purport to compare the situation of the applicants to that of the Gurkha soldiers in the case of British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44818/11, 15 September 2016), in which the Court found no violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

    The Court explained in J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom that in the context of economic or social policy it had limited its acceptance to respect the legislature's policy choice as not "manifestly without reasonable foundation" to circumstances where an alleged difference in treatment resulted from a transitional measure forming part of a scheme carried out in order to correct an inequality (see J.D. and A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 88; see also Stec and Others, cited above, §§ 61-66; Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, §§ 40-41, 10 May 2007; Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria, no. 5335/05, § 52, ECHR 2011, with further references; and British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 81, 15 September 2016).

  • EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 14480/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    All these agreements are different; they reflect the outcome of negotiations between different States and regulate situations that have formed as a result of different historical, economic and political circumstances (see Tarkoev and Others v. Estonia, nos. 14480/08 and 47916/08, § 53, 4 November 2010).

    The Constitutional Court then observed that the applicants, similarly to the applicants in the case of Tarkoev and Others v. Estonia (nos. 14480/08 and 47916/08, 4 November 2010), wished to expand their rights with respect to the amount of pension granted, but this desire was not justified.

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    In its case-law, the Court has previously acknowledged that there may be valid reasons for giving special treatment to those whose link with a country stems from birth within it or who otherwise have a special link with a country (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 88, Series A no. 94, and Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria, no. 5335/05, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2011).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

    SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    Indeed, to borrow the words of another Court judgment regarding non-citizens, Latvia is the country "where they had developed... the network of personal, social and economic relations that make up the private life of every human being" (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 96, ECHR 2003-X).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95
    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    "That being so, the Court reiterates that, while it is not formally bound to follow its previous judgments, it is in the interests of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law that it should not depart, without good reason, from precedents laid down in previous cases - even if, the Convention being first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must have regard to the changing conditions in Contracting States and respond, for example, to any emerging consensus as to the standards to be achieved (see, for example, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 70, ECHR 2001-I, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI).".
  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79
    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    The circumstances of the case - as well as the subject matter and its background - may certainly be taken into account when determining the scope of the State's margin of appreciation in assessing "whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment" (see paragraph 183 of the present judgment; see also, among many others, Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 40, Series A no. 87; Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 88, ECHR 2011; and Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 136, 19 December 2018).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98
    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
    In Martinie v. France [GC] (no. 58675/00, ECHR 2006-VI), where the Court also had to deal with an allegedly narrow interpretation, by the respondent Government, of a previous judgment (namely, Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, ECHR 2001-VI), the Grand Chamber stated as follows:.
  • EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07

    [ENG]

  • EuGH, 27.02.1985 - 56/83

    Italien / Kommission

  • EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98

    RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

    MARTINIE c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 04.02.2021 - 54711/15

    JURCIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 50423/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 43987/11

    VASILJEVIC v. SERBIA and 1 other application

  • EGMR, 16.09.2015 - 71243/01

    VISTINS ET PEREPJOLKINS CONTRE LA LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 63311/14

    HOTI AGAINST CROATIA

  • EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
  • EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 52449/99

    KUNA v. GERMANY

  • EGMR, 19.02.2008 - 74357/01

    KUOLELIS, BARTOSEVICIUS AND BUROKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 9717/05

    EPSTEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  • EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 38985/97

    JASINSKIJ ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE

  • EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 11375/05

    KIREEV v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.04.2002 - 39802/98

    L.B. v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 29.10.2009 - 29137/06

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 59433/18

    EGMR zu den Rechten von Beamten: Lehrer dürften nicht streiken

    In cases relating to general social and economic policy questions, the role of the domestic legislature should be given "special weight" and generally be respected by the Court unless it was "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (they referred to National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, cited above, § 99, and Savickis and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 49270/11, § 184, 9 June 2022).
  • EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14

    EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen

    Rn. 1182 The following passages from Savickis and Others v. Latvia ([GC], no. 49270/11, §§ 183 and 186, 9 June 2022) are of further relevance:.
  • EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 16760/22

    EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Toutefois, seules les différences de traitement fondées sur une caractéristique identifiable (« situation ") sont susceptibles de revêtir un caractère discriminatoire au sens de l'article 14. En outre, toute différence de traitement n'emporte pas automatiquement violation de l'article 14. Une différence de traitement fondée sur un motif prohibé est discriminatoire si elle manque de justification objective et raisonnable, c'est-à-dire si elle ne poursuit pas un but légitime ou s'il n'y a pas un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (Savickis et autres c. Lettonie [GC], no 49270/11, § 181, 9 juin 2022).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht