Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GORNY v. POLAND

  Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  It recalls that it is not the Court's function to act as a court of appeal and to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  It further observes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in general in paragraph 1. For this reason it considers it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaint under the two provisions taken together (see, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  The Court had already dealt with the issue of lustration proceedings in Turek v. Slovakia (no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)) and in Ä?damsons v. Latvia (no. 3669/03, § 116, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  LUBOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 17625/05

  CHODYNICKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  In so far as the applicant contests the principles of lustration process, the Court recalls that it has examined and declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded similar allegations raised in the case of Chodynicki v. Poland ((dec.), no. 17625/05, 2 September 2008).

• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 37293/09

  ZAWISZA v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; and Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 24254/05

  TOMASZ KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  MOSCICKI v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; and Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.