Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  Partiellement irrecevable;Non-violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (Article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Privation de propriété;Respect des biens;Biens);Non-violation de l'article 14+P1-1 - Interdiction de la discrimination ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FÁBIÁN v. HUNGARY

  Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FÁBIÁN v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);No violation of Article ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 78117/13
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ-RR 2018, 855

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (33)

• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  PANFILE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  He contended that in this regard the present case fell to be distinguished from the case with which the Government sought to compare it (Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012), in that in Romania the legislative measure prohibiting the simultaneous receipt of a State-paid pension and a salary acquired through State employment had been taken at the height of the financial crisis, and had been lifted when that crisis had abated.

  45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 and 45588/11, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).

  The applicant's right to an old-age pension in that case stemmed from special legislation on military personnel (see Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 3, 20 March 2012).

  See, of particular interest for the present case, Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 28, 20 March 2012: "... the two categories of persons can hardly be regarded as being in an analogous or relevantly similar situation within the meaning of Article 14, since the essential distinction, relevant to the context in which the impugned measures were taken, is that they draw their incomes from different sources, namely a private budget and the State budget respectively.

• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

  Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  In order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (see, amongst many authorities, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, ECHR 2017; X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 98, ECHR 2013; and Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 125, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).

  The burden of proof, as the Court has held on many occasions, is on the respondent Government, who have to demonstrate that the difference in treatment was justified (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 65, ECHR 2017; Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  Thus, when developing the former Pellegrin doctrine (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 67, ECHR 1999-VIII) into what later became known as the Eskelinen test (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II), the Court recognised the State's interest in controlling access to a court when it comes to certain categories of staff, stating that "it is primarily for the Contracting States, in particular the competent national legislature, not the Court, to identify expressly those areas of public service involving the exercise of the discretionary powers intrinsic to State sovereignty where the interests of the individual must give way" (ibid., § 61).

  In arriving at its conclusion that the applicant was not in an analogous or relevantly similar situation to the suggested comparator, the majority drew on a distinction between civil servants and employees in the private sector made by the Court in judgments such as Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 2033/04 and 8 others, §§ 92 and 98, 25 October 2011); Heinisch v. Germany (no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011, (extracts)); and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II).

 
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  DA SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  62235/12 and 57725/12, § 22, 8 October 2013; da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), § 37, no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015).

  The case at hand does not concern either the permanent, complete loss of the applicant's pension entitlements (compare and distinguish Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 123; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009; and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX) or the reduction thereof (compare da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X), but rather the suspension of his monthly pension payments (see Panfile and Lakicevic and Others, both cited above).

• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  The Court has found "other status", inter alia, where the impugned distinction was based on military rank (Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22); the type of outline planning permission held by the applicant (Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222); whether the applicant's landlord was the State or a private owner (Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999-I); the kind of paternity the applicant enjoyed (Paulík v. Slovakia, no. 10699/05, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts)); the type of sentence imposed on a prisoner (Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, 13 July 2010); the nationality or immigration status of the applicant's son (Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, ECHR 2011); or ownership of large or small parcels of land (Chassagnou, cited above).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 26740/02

  GRANDE ORIENTE D`ITALIA DI PALAZZO GIUSTINIANI c. ITALIE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  25088/94 and 2 others, §§ 91-95, ECHR 1999-III; and Grande Oriente d'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy (no. 2), no. 26740/02, §§ 48-57, 31 May 2007.
• EuGH, 01.03.2011 - C-236/09

  Die Berücksichtigung des Geschlechts von Versicherten als Risikofaktor in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  The principles and objectives of the field to which the act relates must also be taken into account..." See also, in a similar vein, in the specific field of gender equality, Test-Achats, EU:C:2011:100, paragraph 29: "In that regard, it should be pointed out that the comparability of situations must be assessed in the light of the subject-matter and purpose of the EU measure which makes the distinction in question.".
• EuGH, 16.12.2008 - C-127/07

  DIE RICHTLINIE ÜBER EIN SYSTEM FÜR DEN HANDEL MIT …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  See, for example, Arcelor Atlantique, EU:C:2008:728, paragraphs 25-26: "The elements which characterise different situations, and hence their comparability, must in particular be determined and assessed in the light of the subject-matter and purpose of the Community act which makes the distinction in question.
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  See, for example, International Bank for Commerce and Development and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, 2 June 2016, § 131, and the case-law cited therein.
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07

  BAH c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  The Court has found "other status", inter alia, where the impugned distinction was based on military rank (Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22); the type of outline planning permission held by the applicant (Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222); whether the applicant's landlord was the State or a private owner (Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999-I); the kind of paternity the applicant enjoyed (Paulík v. Slovakia, no. 10699/05, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts)); the type of sentence imposed on a prisoner (Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, 13 July 2010); the nationality or immigration status of the applicant's son (Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, ECHR 2011); or ownership of large or small parcels of land (Chassagnou, cited above).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 40862/98

  Minderung des Vorruhestandsgeldes durch den Vertrag über die Herstellung der …
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06

  B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  POULAIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.03.1962 - 214/56

  DE BECKER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10

  Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 25816/09

  GIAVI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  LARKOS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  BRITISH GURKHA WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 42430/05

  AIZPURUA ORTIZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6223/04

  BANFIELD c. ROYAUME-UNI