Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09, 12845/10, 28367/11, 29809/10, 29813/10, 30623/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,30293
EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09, 12845/10, 28367/11, 29809/10, 29813/10, 30623/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,30293)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.10.2013 - 66365/09, 12845/10, 28367/11, 29809/10, 29813/10, 30623/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,30293)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. Oktober 2013 - 66365/09, 12845/10, 28367/11, 29809/10, 29813/10, 30623/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,30293)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,30293) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (20)Zitiert selbst (29)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    Thus the complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic body, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, and the case-law cited therein).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

    Stummer v. Austria

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    On the basis of its settled case-law the Court reiterates that the principles which apply generally in cases under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to salaries and welfare benefits (see, mutatis mutandis, Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, ECHR 2011).
  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    Firstly, it was necessary to look at the overall length of the proceedings (the court referred to Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 59, Series A no. 296-A).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2026 - 2598/24
    Rn. 148 La Cour considère que les objectifs énoncés dans ces textes législatifs relevaient de l'intérêt général et poursuivaient le but légitime de réduire les dépenses publiques, de rééquilibrer le budget et de redresser la situation économique du pays (voir, mutatis mutandis, Panfile c. Roumanie (déc.), no 13902/11, § 21, 20 mars 2012, et Savickas et autres c. Lituanie (déc.), nos 66365/09 et 5 autres, § 92, 15 octobre 2013).

    Les magistrats n'étaient donc pas particulièrement ciblés (les paragraphes 93 à 101 ci-dessus ; voir également, mutatis mutandis, Savickas et autres c. Lituanie (déc.), no 66365/09 et autres, § 93, 15 octobre 2013, et Mockiené,c. Lithuanien (déc.), no 75916/13, 4 juillet 2017 ; voir aussi l'arrêt rendu par la CJUE dans l'affaire Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Suppression d'une indemnité de départ à la retraite des juges), point 45, cité au paragraphe 105 ci-dessus).

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

    BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

    This is particularly so, for instance, when passing laws in the context of a change of political and economic regime (see Valkov and Others, cited above, § 91; the adoption of policies to protect the public purse (see N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, §§ 49 and 61, 14 May 2013); or to reallocate funds (see Savickas v. Lithuania and Others (dec.), no. 66365/09, 15 October 2013); or of austerity measures prompted by a major economic crisis (see Koufaki and ADEDY v. Greece (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 75916/13

    Sparmaßnahme während Finanzkrise keine Eigentumsverletzung

    66365/09 and 5 others, §§ 21-39, 15 October 2013).

    66365/09 and 5 others, § 92, 15 October 2013), the Court considered such aims to be legitimate for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

  • EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

    KIRINCIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA and 2 other applications

    The Court has held that in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, for example, Savickas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, 12845/10 and 28367/11, § 86, 15 October 2013, and Provide S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 62155/00, § 18, 5 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 42139/08

    [ENG]

    The Court has previously found that Lithuanian law provides an effective domestic remedy in cases of excessively long proceedings - a civil claim for damages against the State under Article 6.272 of the Civil Code - and that this remedy must be used before lodging an application with the Court after 6 August 2007 (see Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, §§ 86-88, 15 October 2013).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 61721/19

    KUBÁT v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC and 5 other applications

    The applicants submitted that those considerations also disproved those of the Government's arguments that were based on the case of Savickas and Others v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 66365/09, 15 October 2013), in which the situation had been fundamentally different.
  • EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 54805/15

    ZEGARAC v. SERBIA and 10 other applications

    This is particularly so, for instance, when passing laws in the context of a change of political and economic regime or the merging of pensions systems (see Valkov and Others, cited above, § 91, and Yavaş and Others v. Turkey, no. 36366/06, § 39-51, 5 March 2019); the adoption of policies to protect the public purse (see N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, §§ 49 and 61, 14 May 2013); or to reallocate funds (see Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, 15 October 2013); or of austerity measures prompted by a major economic crisis (see Koufaki and ADEDY v. Greece (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15

    GLAVINIC v. CROATIA

    In this connection the Court reiterates that in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, for example, Savickas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, 12845/10 and 28367/11, § 86, 15 October 2013, and Provide S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 62155/00, § 18, 5 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 36318/21

    RIZZO AND OTHERS v. MALTA

    Rn. 38 In these circumstances, the Court considers that while the Constitutional Court judgments of 2020 announced a shift in practice towards awarding adequate compensation, given the lack of uniformity in the judgments throughout the year, it could not be said that there was a clear and unequivocal practice to the effect that the Constitutional Court was effectively awarding adequate compensation, and therefore that it was by 2020, at least on that basis, an already effective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 114, 30 July 2020, see also Savickas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, 12845/10 and 28367/11, § 77, 15 October 2013).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 11643/20

    ISPIRYAN v. LITHUANIA

    66365/09 and 5 others, §§ 86-88, 15 October 2013).
  • EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

    MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 69419/13

    CINGA v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 60964/21

    MIRONIUK v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 16587/10

    KIISA v. ESTONIA

  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 42434/15

    MARDOSAI v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 76476/12

    YAVUZ SELIM GÜLER c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 21243/17

    SIRVINSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11

    ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 19644/08

    MAZETIS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 32106/08

    [ENG]

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht