Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 10872/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,59893) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOLPACZEWSKA v. POLAND
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KOLPACZEWSKA v. POLAND
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 10872/11
As a consequence, complaints intended to be made before the Court should have first been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law, and any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200). - EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 3485/02
ASSOCIATION OF REAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN LÓDZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 10872/11
The Court has already examined this remedy in the context of general measures introduced at the domestic level covering persons affected by the systemic problem identified in the Hutten-Czapska pilot judgment (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 41, 28 April 2008, and Association of Real Property Owners in Lódź and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and recently in two other cases against Poland (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014). - EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11
WASIEWSKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 10872/11
The Court has already examined this remedy in the context of general measures introduced at the domestic level covering persons affected by the systemic problem identified in the Hutten-Czapska pilot judgment (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 41, 28 April 2008, and Association of Real Property Owners in Lódź and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and recently in two other cases against Poland (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014). - EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 14217/10
STRZELECKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 10872/11
The Court has already examined this remedy in the context of general measures introduced at the domestic level covering persons affected by the systemic problem identified in the Hutten-Czapska pilot judgment (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 41, 28 April 2008, and Association of Real Property Owners in Lódź and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and recently in two other cases against Poland (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014).
- EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12
WYSZYNSKI v. POLAND
As regards the Government's second argument, the Court notes that in another similar case (see Kolpaczewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 10872/11, 6 December 2016) the Government argued that the claim against the tenant was not an effective remedy and that an applicant should claim compensation from the municipality.