Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KADLUCZKA v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  WOS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  The Court recalls that in the Wos judgment (see, Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02, ECHR 2006-VII) it examined a similar complaint in respect of the first compensation scheme, set up on the basis of the bilateral Polish-German agreement of 16 October 1991 and found Article 6 § 1 applicable to the proceedings before the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.

  The Court considers that for all practical purposes, decisions to qualify applicants as coming under a particular eligibility category and to grant payments in respect of the claimants who resided in Poland were taken by the Polish Foundation (see Wos v. Poland (dec.), no. 22860/02, § 66, ECHR 2005-IV; Jakowicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 16778/02, § 76 in fine, 13 October 2009).

  Article 6 § 1 requires that in the determination of civil rights and obligations, decisions taken by administrative or other authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article be subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02, § 92, ECHR 2006-VII).

• EGMR, 04.09.2007 - 45563/04

  A.N.R.P.und 275 andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  This principle applies to the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of wrongs or damage caused by the German Reich (see Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia dall'Internamento e dalla Guerra di Liberazione (A.N.R.P.) v. Germany (dec.), no. 45563/04, 4 September 2007; and Ernewein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 14849/08, 2 May 2009) but it is even more relevant for third States, like Poland, who bear no responsibility in connection with wrongs inflicted by a foreign occupying force or another State (see, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 124, ECHR 2004-V; Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos.

  For details, see the decision in the case Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia dall'Internamento e dalla Guerra di Liberazione (A.N.R.P.) v. Germany, no. 45563/04, 4 September 2007.

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96

  MENNITTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, among other authorities, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000-X, and Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 93, ECHR 2006-...).

  In reaching that conclusion, the Court had regard, inter alia, to the similarities between the compensation claims asserted before the Foundation and disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits, which generally fall within the scope of Article 6 (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 39, 14 November 2006).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  The rule in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 (with which it has a close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of an individual's Convention rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  The purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  According to the Court's settled case-law, a tribunal within the meaning of that provision must satisfy a series of requirements - independence, in particular of the executive, impartiality, duration of its members' terms of office, and guarantees afforded by its procedure - several of which appear in the text of Article 6 § 1 itself (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 64, Series A no. 132; Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, § 39, Series A no. 210; and Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 233, ECHR 2001-IV).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  Article 6 § 1 requires that in the determination of civil rights and obligations, decisions taken by administrative or other authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article be subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02, § 92, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 77, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X, § 51).
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  As regards procedural guarantees, it appears that the adjudicating commissions had no clear and publicly-available rules of procedure (see H v. Belgium, 30 November 1987, § 53, Series A no. 127-B) and did not hold public hearings.
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 14849/08

  E. u. a. ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 9717/05

  EPSTEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  JAKOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04

  BELKA v. POLAND

  The relevant law and practice concerning the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kadluczka v. Poland, no. 31438/06, §§ 19-45, 2 February 2010.

  The importance and complexity of the issues are evidenced also by the fact that the Court has given a number of decisions and judgments relating to similar cases (see Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02, ECHR 2006-VII; Jakowicz v. Poland, (dec.), no. 16778/02, 13 October 2009; Kadluczka v. Poland, no. 31438/06, 2 February 2010; Kostka v. Poland, no. 29334/06, 16 February 2010; and Krosta v. Poland, no. 36137/04, 2 February 2010).

• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 22860/02

  WOS AND 6 OTHER CASES v. POLAND

  Application No. 31438/06, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010.

  Kadluczka, Application No. 31438/06, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010.

• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 41285/02

  SZAL v. POLAND

  The relevant law and practice concerning the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kadluczka v. Poland, no. 31438/06, §§ 19-45, 2 February 2010.
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 25168/05

  [ENG]

  The relevant law and practice concerning the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation are set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kadluczka v. Poland, no. 31438/06, §§ 19-45, 2 February 2010.