Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAMJANAC v. CROATIA

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) Just ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Damjanac v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DAMJANAC v. CROATIA

  Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10
• EGMR, 19.11.2014 - 52943/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 26266/05

  Raviv ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  In view of the principle that there is no right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to receive a social security benefit or pension payment of any kind or amount, unless national law provides for such entitlement (see, for example, Raviv v. Austria, no. 26266/05, § 61, 13 March 2012), the central issue which remains for the Court to determine is whether the applicant satisfied all the requirements under the relevant Croatian pension legislation at the time, generating a property right to receive payment of his pension in Serbia.

  The Government submitted, relying on the Court's case-law in Raviv v. Austria, no. 26266/05, 13 March 2012, that the applicant had never paid any contributions to a pension fund in Croatia and therefore he was not in the same position as other pension beneficiaries who had been paying contributions in Croatia.

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention has been cited, both on its own and together with Article 14, and a separate breach of the substantive Article has been found, it is not generally necessary for the Court also to consider the case under Article 14, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 104, 26 June 2012; and Vistins and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 135, 25 October 2012).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention has been cited, both on its own and together with Article 14, and a separate breach of the substantive Article has been found, it is not generally necessary for the Court also to consider the case under Article 14, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 104, 26 June 2012; and Vistins and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 135, 25 October 2012).

 
• EGMR - 47916/08 (anhängig)

  MININ AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  Furthermore, the Court is not prevented from examining the manner in which international agreements on social policy and pensions have affected an individual's situation at the domestic level (see Tarkoev and Others v. Estonia, nos. 14480/08 and 47916/08, §§ 61-65, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  The Government referred to the case-law in Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-XII, arguing that when he moved to Serbia the applicant lost any territorial link with Croatia and came under the jurisdiction of Serbia.
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  Or, in other words, whether there was a sufficient legal basis in the Croatian domestic legislation for the applicant to claim the payment of his pension in Serbia (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 54, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  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, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 101, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  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, 29.09.2009 - 25409/04

  CAYTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 3205/03

  CROITORU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 14480/08

  TARKOEV AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA