Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JAKOWICZ v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 04.09.2007 - 45563/04

  A.N.R.P.und 275 andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  This principle applies to the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of wrongs or damage caused by the German Reich (see Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia dall'Internamento e dalla Guerra di Liberazione (A.N.R.P.) v. Germany (dec.), no. 45563/04, 4 September 2007; and Ernewein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 14849/08, 2 May 2009) but it is even more relevant for third States, like Poland, who bear no responsibility in connection with wrongs inflicted by a foreign occupying force or another State (see, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 124, ECHR 2004-V; Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos.

  [5] For details, see the decision in the case Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia dall'Internamento e dalla Guerra di Liberazione (A.N.R.P.) v. Germany, no. 45563/04, 4 September 2007.

• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 9717/05

  EPSTEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  In other words, when a State decides to compensate the past wrongs for which it bore no responsibility, it enjoys a significant discretion (grand pouvoir d'appreciation) in determining the beneficiaries and the modalities of any compensation scheme and, in principle, no challenge to the eligibility conditions as such may be allowed (see Maltzan and Others, cited above, § 77; Epstein and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 9717/05, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96

  MENNITTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, among other authorities, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000-X, and Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 93, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 77, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, among other authorities, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000-X, and Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 93, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 14849/08

  E. u. a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  This principle applies to the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of wrongs or damage caused by the German Reich (see Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia dall'Internamento e dalla Guerra di Liberazione (A.N.R.P.) v. Germany (dec.), no. 45563/04, 4 September 2007; and Ernewein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 14849/08, 2 May 2009) but it is even more relevant for third States, like Poland, who bear no responsibility in connection with wrongs inflicted by a foreign occupying force or another State (see, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 124, ECHR 2004-V; Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, among other authorities, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000-X, and Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 93, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04

  KROSTA v. POLAND

  The Court considers that the applicant did not indicate any legal basis for his claim to have a right to receive further compensation from the Foundation (see Jakowicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 16778/02, § 83, 13 October 2009).

  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).

• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04

  BELKA v. POLAND

  The importance and complexity of the issues are evidenced also by the fact that the Court has given a number of decisions and judgments relating to similar cases (see Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02, ECHR 2006-VII; Jakowicz v. Poland, (dec.), no. 16778/02, 13 October 2009; Kadluczka v. Poland, no. 31438/06, 2 February 2010; Kostka v. Poland, no. 29334/06, 16 February 2010; and Krosta v. Poland, no. 36137/04, 2 February 2010).

  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).

• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06

  KADLUCZKA v. POLAND

  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).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 41285/02

  SZAL v. POLAND

  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).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 25168/05

  CZEKIEN v. POLAND

  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).
• EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  KOSTKA v. POLAND

  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).
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 41367/02

  ZGOLA v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the German Foundation carried out random checks of the decisions taken by the Polish Foundation, but in its view this does not alter the conclusion that the Polish Foundation played the main role in the process (Jakowicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 16778/02, § 76, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 38180/02

  PACIEJ v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the German Foundation carried out random checks of the decisions taken by the Polish Foundation, but in its view this does not alter the conclusion that the Polish Foundation played the main role in the process (Jakowicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 16778/02, § 76, 13 October 2009).