Nella decisione, dell'8 ottobre 2013, del caso DA CONCEICAO MATEUS AND SANTOS JANUARIO v. PORTUGAL (decisione di inammissibilità ex art. 35, §§ 3 (a) e 4 della Convenzione, per manifesta infondatezza del ricorso) la Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo ha scritto:
al punto 20: "Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 requires that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful: indeed, the second sentence of the first paragraph of that Article authorises the deprivation of possessions “subject to the conditions provided for by law”. Moreover, the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is a notion inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see ...).",
al punto 22: "The Court stresses that any interference with the enjoyment of the right of property must also pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest (see ...). In this respect, a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of economic or social policy. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” (see ...). This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see ...)".
al punto 23: "However, the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in these particular fields is not unlimited. The Court must be satisfied that a “fair balance” has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. In particular, the Court must ascertain whether by reason of the State interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see ...)".
al punto 24: "In the assessment of the proportionality of the measures taken by the State in respect of pension rights, an important consideration is whether the applicant’s right to derive benefits from the social insurance scheme in question has been infringed in a manner resulting in the impairment of the essence of his right. The nature of the benefit taken away –in particular, whether it has originated in a special advantageous pension scheme available only to certain groups of persons– may also be taken into account. The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant’s personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see ...). In all these cases, the reductions were general measures intended to undo special privileges or to bring special pension regimes into the general one".
al punto 28: "... since the legislator remained within the limits of its margin of appreciation and previous measures involving “remuneratory reductions” contained in the State Budget Act for 2011 had proved to be insufficient, it is not for the Court to decide whether better alternative measures could have been envisaged in order to reduce the State budget deficit (see ...)".
al punto 29: " In the light of the exceptional economic and financial crisis faced by Portugal at the material time and given the limited extent and the temporary effect of the reduction of their holiday and Christmas subsidies, the Court considers that the applicants did not bear a disproportionate and excessive burden."
... e per far meglio valere il tuo diritto al libero lavoro intellettuale, aderisci e invita altri ad aderire al social networkwww.concorrenzaeavvocatura.ning.com e aderisci al gruppo aperto "concorrenzaeavvocatura" su facebook (contano già centinaia di adesioni). 
Unisciti ai tanti che rivendicano una vera libertà di lavoro intellettuale per gli outsiders e, finalmente, il superamento del corporativismo nelle professioni !
| < Prec. | Succ. > |
|---|
