Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WALCZAK v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 7 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 77395/01

  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, inter alia, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, 12 July 2001, to be published in ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

  VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In addition, in many cases the former Commission and the Court have reviewed various aspects of permission-to-appeal or similar proceedings under that provision (see Webb v. the United Kingdom, no. 33186/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. and A.G.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45619/99, 29 February 2000; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002; Stepinska v. France, no. 1814/02, §§ 15-19, 15 June 2004; Guz v. Poland (dec.), no. 29293/02, 19 May 2005; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2006-VI; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007; Mrúz v. Hungary, no. 3261/05, § 20, 14 October 2008; Lajos Németh v. Hungary, no. 3840/05, § 20, 21 October 2008; Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 199, 7 July 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-25, 19 January 2010; Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62793/10, §§ 27-40, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 24406/14

  KOSSOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  S'agissant du grief tiré de l'article 6 de la Convention, concernant la décision de la Cour suprême portant refus d'examen du pourvoi formé par le requérant, la Cour rappelle avoir dit à maintes reprises que le fait pour la Cour suprême de refuser par une décision non motivée l'examen d'un pourvoi jugé manifestement infondé à l'issue d'une séance tenue en chambre du conseil ne portait pas atteinte au droit à un procès équitable (voir, par exemple, Zmali?„ski c. Pologne (déc.), no 52039/99, 16 octobre 2001, Walczak c. Pologne (déc.), no 77395/01, 7 mai 2002 et Smolorz c. Pologne, no 17446/07, § 46, 16 janvier 2013).