Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 66543/01
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  The Court first notes that the dispute as to the increase of the applicant's old-age pension was of a pecuniary nature and indisputably concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46; Massa v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26; Süßmann v. Germany, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1170, § 42 and, as a recent authority, Tričković v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, § 40, 12 June 2001).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  However a "claim"-even concerning a pension-can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, § 59).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  The Court finds that this case is similar to the case of Ryabykh v. Russia (no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX), where it was said, in so far as relevant to the instant case:.

• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  The Court considers that by depriving the applicant of the right to benefit from the pension in the amount secured in a final judgment, the State upset a fair balance between the interests at stake (see, mutatis mutandis Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 43).".
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.02.2005 - 12/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  12/04/2006.
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 14399/88

  MASSA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  The Court first notes that the dispute as to the increase of the applicant's old-age pension was of a pecuniary nature and indisputably concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46; Massa v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26; Süßmann v. Germany, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1170, § 42 and, as a recent authority, Tričković v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, § 40, 12 June 2001).
• EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

  SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  It is true that recalculation of one's pension and its decrease does not, as such, violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Skorkiewicz v Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1998).
• EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 30517/96

  AUNOLA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 66543/01

  The Court reiterates first that the Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to an old-age pension or any social benefit in a particular amount (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 944/02

  LEVOCHKINA v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant, in respect of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the sum she would have received had the reduction of the pension as a result of the reconsideration of the case not been backdated (see, mutatis mutandis, Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 66543/01, § 47, 13 October 2005).