Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 68385/10, 71378/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,14409) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SUKHANOV AND ILCHENKO v. UKRAINE
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 68385/10
v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I). - EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19
DOMENECH ARADILLA AND RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ v. SPAIN
It places no restriction on the Contracting States' freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme (see Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 36, 26 June 2014, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10; Kolesnyk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 57116/10, §§ 89 and 91, 3 June 2014; Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 4519/11, §§ 34, 37-43, 48, 3 June 2014; and Fedulov v. Russia, no. 53068/08, § 66, 8 October 2019). - EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 22386/19
VALVERDE DIGON v. SPAIN
It places no restriction on the Contracting States' freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme (see Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 36, 26 June 2014; Kolesnyk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 57116/10, §§ 89 and 91, 3 June 2014; Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 4519/11, §§ 34, 37-43, 48, 3 June 2014; and Fedulov v. Russia, no. 53068/08, § 66, 8 October 2019). - EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 54104/07
FURTUNA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Le requérant ne fait état d'aucune disposition légale ou jurisprudence solide pouvant servir de fondement pour écarter en l'espèce l'application, après la date précitée, de la nouvelle réglementation (comparer avec Sukhanov et Iltchenko c. Ukraine, nos 68385/10 et 71378/10, §§ 36-37, 26 juin 2014). - EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12
RAMIZ JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
However, this mere recommendation does not prevent the Parliament from freely exercising its legislative function in compliance with the Constitution (see paragraph 26 above and compare Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 37, 26 June 2014). - EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 51924/14
LAVRENOV v. UKRAINE
Finally, concerning the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court reiterates that no "legitimate expectation" for the purposes of this provision can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 75, ECHR 2016 and, for example, Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 35, 26 June 2014).