Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOSCICKI 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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national court (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  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 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, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  The Court has 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, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  LUBOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  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 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, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  GORNY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  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 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, 21.01.2016 - 29908/11

  IVANOVSKI v.

  70665/01 and 74345/01, ECHR 22 January 2004), the Court found Article 6 to be applicable under its civil head only, whereas in the Matyjek case (cited above, loc. cit.) and a number of follow-up cases against Poland (see, for example, Bobek v. Poland, no. 68761/01, 17 July 2007, and Moscicki v. Poland, no. 52443/07, 14 June 2011) it held that this Article was applicable under its criminal head.