Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D.M. v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 13557/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII and Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 60, 15 October 1999).
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

  GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 13557/02

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see, the Kudla judgment cited above § 160 and Gibas v. Poland, no. 24559/94, Commission decision of 6 September 1995, Decisions and Reports 82-A, p. 76).

• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

  KUSMIEREK v. POLAND

  Moreover, the Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI and D.M. v. Poland, no. 13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  KRANZ v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see D.M. v. Poland, no. 13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 37761/97

  LISLAWSKA v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see, D.M. v. Poland, no.13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 20838/02

  CHYB v. POLAND

  It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see, among many other authorities, the Kudla judgment cited above § 160, Bouilly v. France (no. 2), no. 57115/00, § 22, 24 June 2003, D.M. v. Poland, no. 13557/02, § 47, 14 October 2003) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 71625/01

  LIZUT-SKWAREK v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of civil proceedings exists under Polish law (D.M. v. Poland; no. 13557/02, § 47, 14 October 2003).
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 37761/97

  LISLAWSKA v. POLAND

  The Court further refers to its case-law to the effect that no remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see, D.M. v. Poland, no.13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI).