Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KROSTA v. POLAND
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96
MENNITTO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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, 04.09.2007 - 45563/04
A.N.R.P.und 275 andere gegen Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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.[3] 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, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02
JAKOWICZ v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
The Court considers that the applicant did not indicate any legal basis for his claim to have a right to receive further compensation from the Foundation (see Jakowicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 16778/02, § 83, 13 October 2009).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).
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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-...). - EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01
Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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 - 36137/04
65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X, § 51). - EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00
TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03
MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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-...). - EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 14849/08
E. u. a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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. - EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
DEMICOLI v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
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, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80
H. v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83
BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 9717/05
EPSTEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
BELKA v. POLAND
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).