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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

    PANFILE v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    The Court has also held that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a salary of a particular amount (see Panfile v. Romania (dec.), 13902/11, § 18, 20 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08

    KHONIAKINA v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 70, 19 June 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

    ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, 1 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62155/00

    PROVIDE S.R.L. c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    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 Depauw v. Belgium (dec.), no. 2115/04, ECHR 2007-V; Provide S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 62155/00, § 18, 5 July 2007; Majski v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 16924/08, § 70, 19 July 2011).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    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, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 37, Series A no. 40; and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

    MICHALAK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, 1 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    Similar decisions were taken in respect of cases brought against Croatia, Slovakia and Poland, following legislative changes (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
    However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 37, Series A no. 40; and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

    STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

    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, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97

    BARFUSS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  • 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, 16.01.2024 - 36318/21

    RIZZO AND OTHERS v. MALTA

    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, Kirincic 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, 15.12.2015 - 76476/12

    YAVUZ SELIM GÜLER c. TURQUIE

    À la date en question, le recours n'avait pas encore le degré de certitude exigé par la Cour pour pouvoir et devoir être utilisé aux fins de l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention (Valada Matos das Neves c. Portugal, no 73798/13, § 106, 29 octobre 2015 et Savickas et autres c. Lituanie, no 66365/09, § 86 et les références qui y sont citées, 15 octobre 2013).
  • EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

    MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN

    Consequently, there was an effective remedy available in Sweden when the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 23 June 2010, six months after the Supreme Court's judgment (see Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09 et al., § 86, 15 October 2013).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11

    ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN

    Consequently, there was an effective remedy available in Sweden when the applicant lodged the present application on 17 September 2010, nine months after the Supreme Court's judgment (see Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09 et al., § 86, 15 October 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht