Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 16.12.1974 - 5849/72   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/1974,3699
EKMR, 16.12.1974 - 5849/72 (https://dejure.org/1974,3699)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 16.12.1974 - 5849/72 (https://dejure.org/1974,3699)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Dezember 1974 - 5849/72 (https://dejure.org/1974,3699)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1974,3699) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (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 ... (37)

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

    BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

    The payment of contributions to a pension fund may in certain circumstances create a property right in a portion of such a fund and a modification of the pension rights under such a system could therefore in principle raise an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; even if it is assumed that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees to persons who have paid contributions to a special insurance system the right to derive benefit from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount (see Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission's report of 1 October 1975, DR 3, p. 25, § 30, quoted in T. v. Sweden, no. 10671/83, Commission decision of 4 March 1985, DR 42, p. 229, at p. 232).

    In this respect, the fact that a person has entered into and forms part of a State social-security system (even a compulsory one) does not necessarily mean that that system cannot be changed either as to the conditions of eligibility of payment or as to the quantum of the benefit or pension (see Richardson, cited above, § 17, and Damjanac v. Croatia, no. 52943/10, § 86, 24 October 2013; see also Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission's report of 1 October 1975, DR 3, p. 25, §§ 30-31; Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999; and Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 39).

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 51466/99

    Menschenrechte: Änderung in der Ruhegeldversorgung keine Diskriminierung i.S. der

    Der Gerichtshof erinnert ebenfalls daran, dass diese Bestimmung die Staaten nicht daran hindert, mehrere Renten zu kombinieren, um eine Kumulierung der Sozialleistungen zu vermeiden ( Blanco Callejas ./. Spanien (Entsch.), Nr. 64100/00, 18. Juni 2002, Quiles Gonzalez ./. Spanien (Entsch.), Nr. 71752/01, 14. Januar 2003, Müller ./. Österreich , Nr. 5849/72, Bericht der Kommission vom 1. Oktober 1975, DR 3, S. 25, Urbaniak ./. Frankreich , Nr. 36197/97, Entscheidung der Kommission vom 16. April 1998, Kuhlmann ./. Deutschland , Nr. 21519/93, Entscheidung der Kommission vom 30. Juni 1993, Beging ./. Deutschland , Nr. 15376/89, Entscheidung der Kommission vom 27. Mai 1991, und vorerwähnte Sache Stigson ).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

    WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    La Cour rappelle que, dans l'affaire Gaygusuz précitée (paragraphes 39-41), elle a estimé que le droit à l'allocation d'urgence, dont l'attribution était liée au paiement de cotisations à la caisse d'assurance chômage, était un droit patrimonial au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1. De même, la Commission a précédemment assimilé le droit à des prestations de sécurité sociale à un droit de propriété au sens de cette disposition dans le cas d'une personne qui avait payé des cotisations à un régime de sécurité sociale lui permettant de bénéficier ultérieurement des prestations en question (voir, par exemple, Müller c. Autriche, no 5849/72, rapport de la Commission du 1er octobre 1975, Décisions et rapports (DR) 3, p. 25, et G. c. Autriche, no 10094/82, décision de la Commission du 14 mai 1984, DR 38, p. 84).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

    AZINAS c. CHYPRE

    Müller c. Autriche, no 5849/72, rapport de la Commission du 1er octobre 1975, Décisions et rapports (DR) 3, p. 25 ; X c. Autriche, no 7624/76, décision de la Commission du 6 juillet 1977, DR 19, p. 100 ; T. c. Suède, no 10671/83, décision de la Commission du 4 mars 1985, DR 42, p. 229 ; Sture Stigson c. Suède, no 12264/86, décision de la Commission du 13 juillet 1988, DR 57, p. 131 ; Skórkiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 39860/98, 1er juin 1999 ; Domalewski c. Pologne (déc.), no 34610/97, CEDH 1999-V ; Jankovic c. Croatie (déc.), no43440/98, CEDH 2000-X ; voir aussi, en ce qui concerne les droits aux prestations sociales, Gaygusuz c. Autriche, arrêt du 16 septembre 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-IV, et Koua Poirrez c. France, no 40892/98, CEDH 2003-X.
  • EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

    KJARTAN ASMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

    However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees benefits to persons who have contributed to a social insurance system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount (see Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission's report of 1 October 1975, Decisions and Reports 3, p. 25, and Skorkiewicz, cited above).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

    JANKOVIC contre la CROATIE

    The Court recalls, however, that even though the rights stemming from the payment of contributions to the social insurance system, in particular the right to derive benefits from such a system - for instance in the form of a pension - can be asserted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (Eur. Comm. HR, no. 5849/72, Müller v. Austria Comm. Report, 1.10.1975, D.R. 3, p. 25; no. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.1985, D.R. 42, p. 229; Storkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no 39860/98, ECHR 1999, and Domalewski v. Poland, cited above).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 65731/01

    STEC AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Elle précisa qu'à défaut de pareil lien le requérant ne pouvait jamais être considéré comme détenant une part identifiable et exigible du fonds (voir, par exemple, Müller c. Autriche, no 5849/72, décision de la Commission du 1er octobre 1975, DR 3, p. 25 ; G c. Autriche, no 10094/82, décision de la Commission du 14 mai 1984, DR 38, p. 84 ; De Kleine Staarman c. Pays-Bas, no 10503/83, décision de la Commission du 16 mai 1985, DR 42, p. 162).
  • EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 33770/96

    PARUSZEWSKA v. POLAND

    The Commission recalls that, according to the Convention organs' case-law, the making of contributions to a pension fund may, in certain circumstances, create a property right in a portion of such fund and such right may be affected by the manner in which the fund is distributed (No. 4130/69, Yearbook 14, pp. 224 and 240 et seq.; No. 5849/72, Dec. 16.12.74, D.R. 1, p. 46; No. 9776/82, Dec. 3.10.83, D.R. 34, p. 153; No. 12264/86, Dec. 13.7.88, D.R. 57, p. 131).

    However, even if it is assumed that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees persons who have paid contributions to a social insurance system the right to derive benefits from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount (5849/72, Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report 1.10.75, D.R. 3, p. 25; No. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.85, D.R. 42, p. 229).

  • EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 28356/95

    STYK v. POLAND

    It is true that, according to the Convention organs' case-law, the making of contributions to a pension fund may, in certain circumstances, create a property right in a portion of such fund and such right may be affected by the manner in which the fund is distributed (No. 4130/69, Yearbook 14, pp. 224 and 240 et seq.; No. 5849/72, Dec. 16.12.74, D.R. 1, p. 46; No. 9776/82, Dec. 3.10.83, D.R. 34, p. 153; No. 12264/86, Dec. 13.7.88, D.R. 57, p. 131).

    However, even if it is assumed that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees persons who have paid contributions to a social insurance system the right to derive benefits from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount (5849/72, Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report 1.10.75, D.R. 3, p. 25; No. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.85, D.R. 42, p. 229).

  • EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 28707/95

    A.S. v. POLAND

    It is true that, according to the Convention organs' case-law, the making of contributions to a pension fund may, in certain circumstances, create a property right in a portion of such fund and such right may be affected by the manner in which the fund is distributed (No. 4130/69, Yearbook 14, pp. 224 and 240 et seq.; No. 5849/72, Dec. 16.12.74, D.R. 1, p. 46; No. 9776/82, Dec. 3.10.83, D.R. 34, p. 153; No. 12264/86, Dec. 13.7.88, D.R. 57, p. 131).

    However, even if it is assumed that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees persons who have paid contributions to a social insurance system the right to derive benefits from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount (5849/72, Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report 1.10.75, D.R. 3, p. 25; No. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.85, D.R. 42, p. 229).

  • EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

    VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31925/08

    GRUDIC v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

    DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

    SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 27458/06

    LAKICEVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

  • EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 30517/96

    AUNOLA v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 13898/02

    DUMANOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 15085/02

    CEKIC and OTHERS v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 03.09.2002 - 67603/01

    CONTAL contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 20006/08

    ÜSTÜNER c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 64100/00

    BLANCO CALLEJAS contre l'ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 08.12.1998 - 38695/97

    GARCIA MANIBARDO contre l'ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 40210/09

    SAHIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 66907/01

    DOCEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 01.10.2002 - 49151/99

    GASCON MORENO contre l'ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 45424/99

    TRUHLI v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 07.12.2000 - 50115/99

    LAZAREVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 38139/05

    MAMONOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 51290/99

    DEMOKRATIK KITLE PARTISI ET ELCI c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 23.03.2000 - 33945/96

    J.S. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 10.02.2000 - 47711/99

    STAWICKI v. POLAND

  • EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 38696/97

    COKE AND 21 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 27004/95

    SZRABJET AND CLARKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 01.04.1992 - 15379/89

    Z. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EKMR, 05.05.1988 - 12446/86

    ALSTERLUND v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 23161/94

    OKAY contre la TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 05.03.1986 - 10821/84

    GUEBAOLI contre la FRANCE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht