Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=17.04.2012&Aktenzeichen=31925/08
Timestamp: 2019-05-21 12:07:54
Document Index: 696241210

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 35', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 46', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', '§ 84', '§ 72', '§ 84', '§ 17', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 85', '§ 25', '§ 72']

EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31925/08 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2012,15850
EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31925/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,15850)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.04.2012 - 31925/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,15850)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. April 2012 - 31925/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,15850)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15850) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 35, Art. 41, Art. 46, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - General measures) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage Pecuniary damage) (englisch)
EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 31925/08
2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011; and Grudic v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, § 72, 17 April 2012).
2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011; Richardson, cited above, § 17; Grudic v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, § 72, 17 April 2012; Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 72, 19 June 2012; Damjanac, cited above, §§ 85 and 89; and Velikoda, cited above, § 25).
The Government submitted, relying on the Court's case-law in Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010, and Grudic v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, 17 April 2012, that in the period in which the payment of the applicant's pension had been stopped the applicant did not have a right to payment of his pension, and therefore did not have possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They stressed that the applicant was a YPA military pensioner and that the payment of his pension abroad would only have been possible under the relevant domestic law if there had been an international treaty or a reciprocal agreement.
The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute an interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions that needs to be justified (see, among other authorities, Grudic v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, § 72, 17 April 2012, and Valkov and Others, cited above).