Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRASUSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRASUSKI c. POLOGNE [Extraits]

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'art. 13 (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 61444/00
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

  Renvoyant aux principes énoncés dans l'arrêt Kudla c. Pologne ([GC], no 30210/96, CEDH 2000-XI), le Gouvernement ajoute que l'action en responsabilité satisfait pleinement à l'exigence du «redressement approprié» pour toute violation s'étant déjà produite du droit à un procès dans un délai raisonnable.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

  Le fait qu'un recours est de nature purement indemnitaire n'est pas déterminant, que la procédure en question soit terminée ou encore pendante (arrêt Kudla précité, §§ 158-159 ; Caldas Ramírez de Arrellano c. Espagne (déc.), no 68874/01, CEDH 2003-I ; Mifsud c. France (déc.) [GC], no 57220/00, CEDH 2002-VIII, et Paulino Tomás c. Portugal (déc.), no 58698/00, CEDH 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 68874/01

  CALDAS RAMIREZ DE ARRELLANO contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

  Le fait qu'un recours est de nature purement indemnitaire n'est pas déterminant, que la procédure en question soit terminée ou encore pendante (arrêt Kudla précité, §§ 158-159 ; Caldas Ramírez de Arrellano c. Espagne (déc.), no 68874/01, CEDH 2003-I ; Mifsud c. France (déc.) [GC], no 57220/00, CEDH 2002-VIII, et Paulino Tomás c. Portugal (déc.), no 58698/00, CEDH 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

  PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

  Le fait qu'un recours est de nature purement indemnitaire n'est pas déterminant, que la procédure en question soit terminée ou encore pendante (arrêt Kudla précité, §§ 158-159 ; Caldas Ramírez de Arrellano c. Espagne (déc.), no 68874/01, CEDH 2003-I ; Mifsud c. France (déc.) [GC], no 57220/00, CEDH 2002-VIII, et Paulino Tomás c. Portugal (déc.), no 58698/00, CEDH 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

  La loi de 2004 étant entrée en vigueur le 17 septembre 2004, 1'absence de pratique judiciaire établie concernant l'article 417 du code civil n'est pas déterminante (voir, mutatis mutandis, Charzynski c. Pologne (déc.), no 15212/03, § 41, CEDH 2005-V).

• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 40387/06

  KRAWCZAK v. POLAND

  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 the 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 the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; and Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA v. POLAND

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 7224/04

  NAUS c. POLOGNE

  Les décisions Charzynski c. Pologne (no 15212/03, §§ 12-23, CEDH 2005-V), Ratajczyk c. Pologne (no 11215/02, CEDH 2005-VIII) et Krasuski c. Pologne (no 61444/00, §§ 34-46, CEDH 2005-V), ainsi que l'arrêt Swat c. Pologne (no 13545/03, 18 décembre 2007, §§ 20-24) décrivent le droit et la pratique internes pertinents concernant l'efficacité de la voie de recours interne instaurée par la loi de 2004.
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 72169/01

  RZESZOWSKA-SOBCZYK v. POLAND

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 15071/02

  MAJ v. POLAND

  Turning to the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Podbielski v. Poland, judgment of 30 October 1998, RJD 1998-VIII; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, 13 July 2004 and Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, 21 September 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003; Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-... and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28436/04

  STULA v. POLAND

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  WAWRZYNOWICZ v. POLAND

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 63131/00

  GEBURA v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the State's liability for torts committed by its officials are set out in paragraphs 34-37 of the Court's judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-V (extracts).
• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 6925/02

  SZYMONSKI c. POLOGNE

  Le 14 juin 2005, 1a Cour a rendu un arrêt dans l'affaire pilote Krasuski c. Pologne (no 61444/00, CEDH 2005-...), estimant que les requérants se plaignant de la durée excessive de la procédure interne devaient, en vertu de l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention, engager une action en ce sens sur la base de la loi de 2004 (§ 72 de l'arrêt).
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 5953/03

  LAZAR v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12447/04

  MAMZER AND DYLICH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 37991/04

  PAWLOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 19560/02

  POPIEL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 77795/01

  ORZECHOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 49034/99

  CZECH c. POLOGNE