Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOUFAKI ET ADEDY c. GRÈCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOUFAKI AND ADEDY v. GREECE [Extracts]

  Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00

  O'REILLY AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 28 February 2002; Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, 4 January 2005; and Huc v. Romania and Germany (dec.), no. 7269/05, § 64, 1 December 2009).
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  The Court considers that the restrictions introduced by the impugned legislation should not be considered as a "deprivation of possessions" as the applicants claim, but rather as interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions for the purposes of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-IX; Wieczorek, cited above, § 61; and Valkov and Others, cited above, § 88; see also, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and § 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  As the decision to enact laws to balance State expenditure and revenue will commonly involve consideration of political, economic and social issues, the Court considers that the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to choose the most appropriate means of achieving this and will respect their judgment unless it is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, 17 October 2002; Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, 8 December 2009; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 28 February 2002; Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, 4 January 2005; and Huc v. Romania and Germany (dec.), no. 7269/05, § 64, 1 December 2009).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 52449/99

  KUNA v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (see, in particular, Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Kuna v. Germany, (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V; Blanco Callejas v. Spain (dec.), no. 64100/00, 18 June 2002; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

  HASANI v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  The Court considers that the restrictions introduced by the impugned legislation should not be considered as a "deprivation of possessions" as the applicants claim, but rather as interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions for the purposes of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-IX; Wieczorek, cited above, § 61; and Valkov and Others, cited above, § 88; see also, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and § 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  PANFILE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, 25 October 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania, cited above, § 40) or to a salary of a particular amount (see Panfile v. Romania (dec.), 13902/11, § 18, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

  SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (see, in particular, Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Kuna v. Germany, (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V; Blanco Callejas v. Spain (dec.), no. 64100/00, 18 June 2002; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (see, in particular, Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Kuna v. Germany, (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V; Blanco Callejas v. Spain (dec.), no. 64100/00, 18 June 2002; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 64100/00

  BLANCO CALLEJAS contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (see, in particular, Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Kuna v. Germany, (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V; Blanco Callejas v. Spain (dec.), no. 64100/00, 18 June 2002; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08

  KHONIAKINA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 44232/11

  MIHAIES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 7269/05

  Erhoben von F. H. gegen Rumänien und Deutschland

• BAG, 20.10.2017 - 2 AZR 783/16

  Staateninsolvenz - Änderungskündigung zur Entgeltabsenkung

  Das folgt daraus, dass dem Staat in ökonomischen Fragen im Allgemeinen ein weiter Beurteilungsspielraum zukommt, der umso größer ist, wenn es um Maßnahmen geht, die Teil eines umfassenden Sparprogramms sind und die vor dem Hintergrund ernsthafter wirtschaftlicher Schwierigkeiten während einer globalen Finanzkrise getroffen werden (vgl. bezüglich der Prüfung von Grundrechtsbeeinträchtigungen EGMR [I. Sektion] 7. Mai 2013 - 57665/12 und 57657/12 - [Koufaki und ADEDY/Griechenland] Rn. 31) .
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63066/14

  Schuldenschnitt in Griechenland: Die Umschuldung war legal

  La Cour rappelle en outre qu'elle a déjà construit une jurisprudence relative à la marge d'appréciation des États dans le contexte de la crise économique qui sévit en Europe depuis 2008 et plus particulièrement en relation avec des mesures d'austérité prises par voie législative ou autre et visant des couches entières de la population (Valkov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 2033/04, 25 octobre 2011, Frimu et 4 autres requêtes c. Roumanie (déc.), nos 45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 et 45588/11, § 40, 7 février 2012, Panfile c. Roumanie (déc.), no 13902/11, 20 mars 2012, Koufaki et ADEDY c. Grèce (déc.), nos 57665/12 et 57657/12, 7 mai 2013, N.K.M. c. Hongrie, no 66529/11, 14 mai 2013, da Conceição Mateus et Santos Januário c. Portugal (déc.), nos 62235/12 et 57725/12, 8 octobre 2013, Savickas c. Lituanie (déc.), no 66365/09, 15 octobre 2013, et da Silva Carvalho Rico c. Portugal (déc.), no 13341/14, 1er septembre 2015).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  DA SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL

  57665/12 and 57657/12, § 31, 7 May 2013).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 62235/12

  DA CONCEIÇÃO MATEUS AND SANTOS JANUÁRIO v. PORTUGAL

  57665/12 and 57657/12, § 31, 7 May 2013).
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 43892/04

  PENNINO c. ITALIE

  Cela permet de différencier la présente affaire de l'affaire Bäck c. Finlande, évoquée par le Gouvernement (paragraphe 52 ci-dessus), où il s'agissait de l'aménagement d'une créance sur un particulier, ainsi que de l'affaire Koufari et Adedy c. Grèce ((déc.), nos 57665/12 et 57657/12, §§ 31-50, 7 mai 2013), où il était question d'une politique sociale visant à réduire, à l'avenir, les rémunérations et les pensions des fonctionnaires.
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 20006/08

  ÜSTÜNER c. TURQUIE

  Un tel équilibre n'est pas respecté si la personne concernée a dû subir une charge individuelle excessive (Koufaki et Adedy c. Grèce (déc.), nos 57665/12 et 57657/12, § 32, 7 mai 2013, et Khoniakina c. Géorgie, no 17767/08, § 70, 19 juin 2012).
• EGMR - 17949/20 (anhängig)

  SICLARI v. ITALY

  57665/12 and 57657/12, §§ 22 and 32-34, 7 May 2013)?.
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 11809/12

  STRAKA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  57665/12 and 57657/12, § 31, 7 May 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 45651/11

  DOBROWOLSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  57665/12 and 57657/12, § 33, 7 May 2013, with further references).