Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOS c. POLOGNE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (incompatibilité ratione personae non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Exception préliminaire jointe au fond (incompatibilité ratione materiae) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Frais et ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOS v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections rejected (incompatibility ratione personae non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection joined to merits (incompatibility ratione materiae) Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 22860/02
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 22860/02

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  This is particularly true for the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see, among other authorities, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 59021/00

  Massaker von Distomo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  The Government also referred to the Court's case-law concerning State immunity (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI) and argued that judicial remedies in respect of certain claims, including those related to the Second World War, were considered ineffective (see Kalogeropoulou and Others v. Greece and Germany (dec.), no. 59021/00, ECHR 2002-X).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  A. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  Furthermore, it is important to note that the present case, contrary to what is suggested by the Government, does not concern the issue of State immunity (see Al-Adsani, cited above; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI; and Kalogeropoulou and Others, cited above) or any other form of immunity recognised in international law or generally accepted by the signatory States which could be regarded as a proportionate restriction on the right of access to a court (see Waite and Kennedy, cited above, concerning the immunity of international organisations, and A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X, concerning the doctrine of parliamentary immunity), but a compensation scheme which derives from an international agreement.

 
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  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, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  In this context, the Court emphasises that it would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society, or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from civil liability on large groups or categories of persons (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Al-Adsani, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  Having regard to its findings on that question, the Court considers that the argument related to the particular nature of the benefits cannot outweigh the importance of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Aït-Mouhoub v. France, 28 October 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-VIII, referring to Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32; see also Waite and Kennedy, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  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, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  The Court observes that in Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, §§ 28-36, Series A no. 18) it held that the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 6 concerning fairness, publicity and promptness would be meaningless in the absence of any protection for the precondition for the enjoyment of those guarantees, namely, access to a court.
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  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

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  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).
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 37112/97

  FOGARTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13023/87

  SALESI c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 56030/07

  Kirchenkritische Mitarbeiter - Keine Beschäftigung für religionskritischen …

  It is obvious that the responsibility of a State is engaged if a violation of one of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention is the result of non-observance by that State of its obligation under Article 1 to secure those rights and freedoms in its domestic law to everyone within its jurisdiction (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 26, Series A no. 247-C; Wos v. Poland (dec.), no. 22860/02, § 60, ECHR 2005-IV; and Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 101, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 41285/02

  SZAL v. POLAND

  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).

  The applicant referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02 and concluded that in view of the similarities between the shortcomings which the Court criticised in that case and the circumstances of the present case, it was obvious that the applicant's right of access to a court had also been breached.

  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, 06.11.2008 - 58911/00

  Rechtssache L. e.V. u.a gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Zwar hat der Gerichtshof mehrfach festgestellt, dass die vermögenswerte Art eines geltend gemachten Rechts einen unter Artikel 6 Abs. 1 fallenden Streit hervorrief (siehe z. B. Rechtssachen Salesi ./. Italien , Urteil vom 26. Februar 1993, Serie A Bd. 257-E, Rdnr.19, und Wos ./. Polen , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02, Rdnrn. 76, 77, EGMR 2006-...); dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass Streitigkeiten nicht-vermögenswerter Art zwangsläufig nicht von dieser Bestimmung erfasst sind.

 
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  KADLUCZKA v. POLAND

  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

  Insbesondere bei der Entscheidung, wie und an wen Wiedergutmachung für solches Unrecht zu leisten ist, hat der Staat einen großen Ermessensspielraum (…siehe sinngemäß von Maltzan u.a. ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerden Nr. 71916/01, 71917/01 und 10260/02, Rdnr. 74, ECHR 2005-...; Wos ./. Polen , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02, Rdnr. 72, ECHR 2006-...).

  In dieser Rechtssache befand der Gerichtshof, dass der Beschwerdeführer die Voraussetzungen erfüllte und daher zumindest einen vertretbaren Anspruch auf Entschädigung hatte (siehe Wos ./. Polen [Entsch.], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02, 1. März 2005, am 8. Juni 2006 durch Urteil des Gerichtshofs bestätigt, a.a.O.).

• EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  KOSTKA v. POLAND

  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, 16.03.2017 - 23621/11

  Fröbrich ./. Deutschland - Stasi-Informant muss Entschädigung wegen DDR-Haft …

  Dies gilt auch für individuelle Entschädigungsansprüche für Unrecht, das unter einem früheren Regime erlitten wurde (Wos./. Polen (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02, Rdnr. 76, ECHR 2005-IV, betreffend ein Opfer der NS-Verfolgung).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 25168/05

  CZEKIEN v. POLAND

  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, 12.05.2009 - 14849/08

  E. u. a. ./. Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof stellt fest, dass die Konvention die Vertragsstaaten nicht ausdrücklich verpflichtet, einem von einem Vorgängerstaat verursachten Unrecht oder Schaden abzuhelfen (…siehe Kopecký , a.a.O., Rdnr. 35 und 37-38; Wos ./. Polen (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02, Rdnr. 84, ECHR 2005-IV, bei der der Beschwerdeführer zumindest einen vertretbaren Anspruch nach innerstaatlichem Recht glaubhaft machen konnte, nachfolgend bestätigt in Wos ./.

  Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02 , Rdnr. 73 f., 8. Juni 2006;… von Maltzan u.a. , a.a.O. Rdnr. 77; Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia dall'Internamento e dalla Guerra di Liberazione und 275 andere ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr.

• EGMR, 11.12.2006 - 25553/02

  I. F. gegen Deutschland

  Unter Hinweis darauf, dass die Bedingungen für die Leistungsberechtigung gesetzlich bestimmt waren, kam der Gerichtshof in dieser Rechtssache zu dem Schluss, dass diese Bestimmungen einen Entschädigungsanspruch begründeten (siehe Rechtssache Wos ./. Polen (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02, 1. März 2005).
• EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 14336/05

  KAMBUROV v. BULGARIA (II)
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 22214/02

  VODOPYANOVY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 28256/06

  TES ET AUTRES c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 4773/02

  SYCHEV v. UKRAINE