Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KULIKOWSKI AND 12 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 18353/03
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18353/03
- EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06
Wird zitiert von ... (14)
- EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06
SUBICKA v. POLAND
This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010 and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05
KOWALCZYK v. POLAND
This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)
This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 Septembre 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011.
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05
SLOWIK v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07
WRZESINSKI v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08
SIWIEC v. POLAND
This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (see Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts), and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009). - EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 34118/11
ORDRE DES AVOCATS DEFENSEURS ET AVOCATS PRES LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONACO c. MONACO
Sa poursuite d'un but d'intérêt général, combiné avec la spécificité de la profession d'avocat relevée par la Cour dans sa jurisprudence, justifie qu'il ait qualité à agir contre les ingérences arbitraires des pouvoirs publics (cf. notamment André et autres c. France, précité, Kulikowski c. Pologne, no 18353/03, 19 mai 2009, Steur c. Pays-Bas, no 39657/98, CEDH 2003-XI, Nikula c. Finlande, no 31611/96, CEDH 2002-II, Kyprianou c. Chypre [GC], no 73797/01, CEDH 2005-XIII, et Gillberg c. Suède, no 41723/06, 2 novembre 2010). - EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05
TOMCZYKOWSKI v. POLAND
This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009). - EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 56334/08
JEDRZEJCZAK v. POLAND
This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009). - EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 20520/08
KOCUREK v. POLAND
This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009). - EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34851/07
KRAMARZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 45213/07
CHOROBIK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09
INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 57944/08
KEDRA v. POLAND
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ARCINSKI v. POLAND
(englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (14) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
The Court further emphasises the importance of the right of access to a court, having regard to the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12-13, § 24). - EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or be privately financed, and as such cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 57, and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII, mutatis mutandis).
- EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
Nevertheless, assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38). - EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
A restrictive interpretation of that right would not be consonant with the object and purpose of this provision (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, § 30). - EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80
GODDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, p. 11, § 27; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk, cited above, §§ 121-122; and Sialkowska, cited above, §§ 99-100). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97
ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
Given the special nature of the court of cassation's role, which is limited to reviewing whether the law has been correctly applied, the Court is able to accept that the procedure followed in such courts may be more formal (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-VII; Staroszczyk, cited above, § 125; and Sialkowska, cited above, § 104). - EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99
RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or be privately financed, and as such cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002). - EGMR, 18.12.2001 - 29692/96
R.D. v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
In discharging its obligation to provide parties to criminal proceedings with legal aid, when this is provided for by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001). - EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96
CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04
Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or be privately financed, and as such cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002). - EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98
TUZINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05
ZAPADKA v. POLAND
In discharging its obligation to provide parties to proceedings with legal aid when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II; Staroszczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 130, Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, § 107, Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, § 4, 28 July 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, § 34, 15 September 2009 and R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001, mutatis mutandis).As was emphasised in my previous concurring opinions in three recent cases (Kulikowski v. Poland, no18353/03, 18 August 2009, Antonicelli v. Poland, no2815/05, 18 August 2009 and Arcinski v. Poland, 41373/04, 15 September 2009), as well as in the joint dissenting opinion in Smyk v. Poland, no8958/04, 28 July 2009, 1 see the problem of the refusal of lawyers appointed under a legal-aid scheme to represent legally-aided persons on the ground that the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, as the general one, related not only to criminal, but also to both civil and administrative proceedings[1].
- EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02
BAKOWSKA v. POLAND
In discharging its obligation to provide parties to proceedings with legal aid when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II; Staroszczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 130, Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, § 107, Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, § 4, 28 July 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, § 34, 15 September 2009 and R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001, mutatis mutandis).[1]Kulikowski v. Poland, no18353/03, 18 August 2009, Antonicelli v. Poland, no2815/05, 18 August 2009, Arciÿski v. Poland, 41373/04, 15 September 2009 and Zapadka v. Poland, n°2615/05, 15 December 2009).
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
DOMBROWSKI v. POLAND
Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 648/02
JAN ZAWADZKI v. POLAND
Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).As was emphasised in my previous concurring opinions in three recent cases (Kulikowski v. Poland, no18353/03, 18 August 2009, Antonicelli v. Poland, no2815/05, 18 August 2009 and Arcinski v. Poland, 41373/04, 15 September 2009), as well as in the joint dissenting opinion in Smyk v. Poland, no8958/04, 28 July 2009, 1 see the problem of the refusal of lawyers appointed under a legal-aid scheme to represent legally-aided persons on the ground that the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, as the general one, related not only to criminal, but also to both civil and administrative proceedings[1].
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34736/06
ZEBROWSKI v. POLAND
Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos. - EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06
SUBICKA v. POLAND
Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010 and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010. - EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05
KOWALCZYK v. POLAND
Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos. - EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)
Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 Septembre 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011. - EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 35916/08
KORGUL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 18063/07
MIROSLAW WOJCIECHOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 16286/07
WLODARCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 17656/06
SZPARAG v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 40459/05
URBANOWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53653/07
WOLINSKI v. POLAND