Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARIJA BOZIC v. CROATIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Bozic v. Croatia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BOZIC v. CROATIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 50636/09
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00
ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV). - EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06
HAJNAL v. SERBIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012). - EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98
BELCHEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
- EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
The Court reiterates that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, a breach of the Convention and have provided redress (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
The requisite fair balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52). - EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
Therefore, where the amount of a benefit or pension is reduced or eliminated, this may constitute an interference with possessions which requires to be justified in the general interest (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2005-X; Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; and Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. - EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84
ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
Noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, § 57), the Court is satisfied that the Croatian Pension Fund's decisions on the applicant's status and pension were in accordance with domestic law. - EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00
KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
Therefore, where the amount of a benefit or pension is reduced or eliminated, this may constitute an interference with possessions which requires to be justified in the general interest (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2005-X; Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; and Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. - EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97
DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
Another important consideration of the Court is whether the applicant's right to derive benefits from the pension insurance has been infringed in a manner resulting in the impairment of the essence of her pension rights (see Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 39, and Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95
TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make an initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures that interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 50636/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARIJA BOZIC CONTRE LA CROATIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARIJA BOZIC AGAINST CROATIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 50636/09
Wird zitiert von ...
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 43730/07
GAJTANI c. SUISSE
En d'autres termes, le risque de toute erreur de la part d'une autorité publique doit être supporté par l'État et aucune erreur ne doit être réparée au détriment de la personne concernée (Gashi c. Croatie, no 32457/05, § 40, 13 décembre 2007 ; Gladysheva c. Russie, no 7097/10, § 80, 6 décembre 2011 ; Pyrantiene c. Lituanie, no 45092/07, § 70, 12 novembre 2013 ; Marija Bozic c. Croatie, no 50636/09, § 56, 24 avril 2014 ; Simecki c. Croatie, no 15253/10, § 46, 30 avril 2014, et Albergas et Arlauskas c. Lituanie, no 17978/05, § 59, 27 mai 2014).