Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARTYNA v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 13 MRK
  Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 72040/01

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection), [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, §§ 29-32, 1 March 2005; Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX; and Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, §§ 24-27, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99

  MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 72040/01

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection), [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, §§ 29-32, 1 March 2005; Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX; and Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, §§ 24-27, 18 July 2006).

• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 21506/08

  GOLUBOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008)).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 46055/06

  TAKTAKISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The Court reiterates that it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 4955/09

  ZAGANCZYK v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 25543/09

  DUDA v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 23352/09

  STOBIK v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 35003/09

  JAROCKI v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 29680/09

  MECHA v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 23537/11

  WASEK v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07

  WRZESINSKI v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 10056/09

  BACZA v. POLAND

  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Martyna v. Poland (dec.), no. 72040/01, 15 January 2008; Golubowski and 6 other applications v. Poland (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 18342/08

  PKS TYCHY SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 3535/09

  WITEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 37574/08

  PKS TYCHY SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 50648/10

  HEMLICH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 45223/08

  TARANOWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 69407/11

  PIENIEK v. POLAND