Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POULAIN c. FRANCE

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

  SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 ne saurait être interprété comme donnant droit à une pension d'un montant déterminé (Skórkiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 39860/98, 1er juin 1999, Schwengel c. Allemagne (déc.), no 52442/99, 2 mars 2000, Laloyaux c. Belgique (déc.), no 73511/01, 9 mars 2006, Apostolakis c. Grèce, no 39574/07, § 36, 22 octobre 2009, et Aizpurua Ortiz et autres c. Espagne, no 42430/05, § 38, 2 février 2010).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  Cette ingérence relève donc du second alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1. Cependant, cette règle doit s'interpréter à la lumière du principe général du respect de la propriété énoncé dans le premier paragraphe du premier alinéa de l'article précité (voir, mutatis mutandis, Spadea et Scalabrino c. Italie, 28 septembre 1995, § 28, série A no 315-B, Immobiliare Saffi c. Italie [GC], no 22774/93, § 46, CEDH 1999-V, et J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd et J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 44302/02, § 66, CEDH 2007-X).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 42430/05

  AIZPURUA ORTIZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 ne saurait être interprété comme donnant droit à une pension d'un montant déterminé (Skórkiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 39860/98, 1er juin 1999, Schwengel c. Allemagne (déc.), no 52442/99, 2 mars 2000, Laloyaux c. Belgique (déc.), no 73511/01, 9 mars 2006, Apostolakis c. Grèce, no 39574/07, § 36, 22 octobre 2009, et Aizpurua Ortiz et autres c. Espagne, no 42430/05, § 38, 2 février 2010).
• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 52442/99

  SCHWENGEL contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 ne saurait être interprété comme donnant droit à une pension d'un montant déterminé (Skórkiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 39860/98, 1er juin 1999, Schwengel c. Allemagne (déc.), no 52442/99, 2 mars 2000, Laloyaux c. Belgique (déc.), no 73511/01, 9 mars 2006, Apostolakis c. Grèce, no 39574/07, § 36, 22 octobre 2009, et Aizpurua Ortiz et autres c. Espagne, no 42430/05, § 38, 2 février 2010).

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  STEFANETTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  The Court observes that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009) and that, conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, for example, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic, cited above).

  The deprivation of the entirety of a pension is likely to breach the said provision (see for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009); conversely, minimal reductions to a pension or related benefits are likely not to do so (see, among many other authorities, Valkov and Others, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X; and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  The case at hand does not concern either the permanent, complete loss of the applicant's pension entitlements (compare and distinguish Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 123; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009; and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX) or the reduction thereof (compare da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X), but rather the suspension of his monthly pension payments (see Panfile and Lakicevic and Others, both cited above).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  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, cited above, § 55).

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 27458/06

  LAKICEVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

  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.
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31925/08

  GRUDIC v. SERBIA

  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.
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 71148/10

  PHILIPPOU v. CYPRUS

  More recently, the Court has observed in general (see Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015) and Stefanetti and Others, cited above, § 59, 15 April 2014), that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension was likely to breach Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Apostolakis, cited above, and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX) and that, conversely, the imposition of a reduction which it considers to be reasonable and commensurate would not (see, for example, among many other authorities, Da Silva Carvalho Rico, and Valkov and Others, both cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and, a contrario, Stefanetti and Others, cited above).