Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 21398/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,66969) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WOJCIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 56026/00
WENDE AND KUKOWKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 21398/02
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, § 38-42, 10 May 2007.The Court considered that when the relevant law provided individuals with a possibility of lodging a complaint without being represented by a lawyer, the domestic court should advise applicants on how to remedy the formal deficiencies of their complaints (see Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, § 52-56, 10 May 2007; Wawrzynowicz v. Poland, no. 73192/01, § 52-56, 17 July 2007).
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99
SLIVENKO v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 21398/02
It does not guarantee the right to acquire property (Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35(b), ECHR 2004-IX). - EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73578/01
PISTOROVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 21398/02
Consequently, a person who complains of a violation of his or her right to property must first show that such a right existed (Pistorová v. the Czech Republic, no. 73578/01, § 38, 26 October 2004; Des Fours Walderode v. the Czech Republic (dec), no. 40057/98, 4 March 2003, ECHR 2004-V; Zhigalev v. Russia, no. 54891/00, § 131, 6 July 2006). - EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 21398/02
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, § 38-42, 10 May 2007. - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 21398/02
The Court notes at the outset that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions (Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, § 50; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-...).