Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DROZDOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 34 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).

  The third principle is that "a norm cannot be regarded as a "law" unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable a person to regulate his conduct; he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail" (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, §§ 86-88).

• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).

  The opening of letters both to and from the Convention organs undoubtedly gives rise to the possibility that they will be read and may conceivably, on occasion, also create the risk of reprisals by prison staff against the prisoner concerned (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 22, § 62).

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  According to the Court's case-law, while the opening of a letter from a lawyer - if the prison authorities have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure and when suitable guarantees are provided - may be permitted, no compelling reasons have been found to exist for the opening of letters to the Convention organs (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  Taking into account the above considerations, the Court finds no compelling reasons why the applicant's correspondence with the Court should have been monitored (see among many other authorities Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 129, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  JANUS v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of correspondence is stated in the Court's in the cases of Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no 37641/97, 2 December 2003, and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, 6 December 2005.

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).

• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 10816/02

  KOZIMOR v. POLAND

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 13425/02

  MICHTA v. POLAND

  According to the Court's case-law, no compelling reasons have been found to exist for the opening of letters to the Convention organs (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).

 
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05

  MIROSLAW ZIELINSKI v. POLAND

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III; and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

  MOCNY v. POLAND

  In numerous cases concerning the monitoring of prisoners" correspondence with the Court it was settled practice that the Court would raise of its own motion the issues of compliance with Article 8 and, in some cases also of compliance with Article 34 of the Convention (see, amongst many others, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 20, 14 June 2005; Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, § 19, 6 December 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 52, 4 May 2006; Maksym v. Poland, no. 14450/02, § 20, 19 December 2006; Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 20, 6 September 2007; Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, § 56, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, § 23, 8 January 2008; Dzitkowski v. Poland, no. 35833/03, § 50, 27 November 2007, Stepniak v. Poland, no. 29366/03, § 14, 29 January 2008, Miernicki v. Poland, no. 10847/02, § 75, 27 October 2009).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34907/05

  HINCZEWSKI v. POLAND

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III; and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 13637/03

  BARTOSINSKI v. POLAND

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  OWSIK v. POLAND

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 64284/01

  OLEKSY v. POLAND

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 23042/02

  CABALA v. POLAND

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 3489/03

  CEGLOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 77832/01

  DZYRUK v. POLAND