Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUBOCH v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2009, 1421 (Ls.)

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

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  Moreover, the Court has held that a constitutional complaint was an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention only in situations where the alleged violation of the Convention resulted from the direct application of a legal provision considered by the complainant to be unconstitutional (see, Szott-Medynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003; Pachla v. Poland (dec.), no. 8812/02, 8 November 2005; Wiacek v. Poland (dec.), no. 19795/02, 17 January 2006; Palusinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 62414/00, ECHR 2006-... and Tereba v. Poland (dec.), no. 30263/04, 21 November 2006).
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 19795/02

  WIACEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  Moreover, the Court has held that a constitutional complaint was an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention only in situations where the alleged violation of the Convention resulted from the direct application of a legal provision considered by the complainant to be unconstitutional (see, Szott-Medynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003; Pachla v. Poland (dec.), no. 8812/02, 8 November 2005; Wiacek v. Poland (dec.), no. 19795/02, 17 January 2006; Palusinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 62414/00, ECHR 2006-... and Tereba v. Poland (dec.), no. 30263/04, 21 November 2006).
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  The Court had already dealt with the issue of lustration proceedings in the Turek v. Slovakia case (no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  It is not for the Court to speculate on what might have been the outcome of the proceedings had they complied with fairness requirements of Article 6 (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 128, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 62414/00

  PALUSINSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  Moreover, the Court has held that a constitutional complaint was an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention only in situations where the alleged violation of the Convention resulted from the direct application of a legal provision considered by the complainant to be unconstitutional (see, Szott-Medynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003; Pachla v. Poland (dec.), no. 8812/02, 8 November 2005; Wiacek v. Poland (dec.), no. 19795/02, 17 January 2006; Palusinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 62414/00, ECHR 2006-... and Tereba v. Poland (dec.), no. 30263/04, 21 November 2006).
• EGMR, 21.11.2006 - 30263/04

  TEREBA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  Moreover, the Court has held that a constitutional complaint was an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention only in situations where the alleged violation of the Convention resulted from the direct application of a legal provision considered by the complainant to be unconstitutional (see, Szott-Medynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003; Pachla v. Poland (dec.), no. 8812/02, 8 November 2005; Wiacek v. Poland (dec.), no. 19795/02, 17 January 2006; Palusinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 62414/00, ECHR 2006-... and Tereba v. Poland (dec.), no. 30263/04, 21 November 2006).
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 38184/03

  MATYJEK ET 11 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  The Court further observes that it has already found that Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applied to lustration proceedings (see, Matyjek v. Poland (dec.), no. 38184/03, ECHR 2006-... and Bobek v. Poland (dec.), no. 68761/01, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  It further observes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in general in paragraph 1. For this reason it considers it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaint under the two provisions taken together (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 34, § 33).

• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 10104/08

  ZABLOCKI v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 37293/09

  ZAWISZA v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; and Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 24254/05

  TOMASZ KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

 
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 49974/08

  MOCZULSKI v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  GORNY v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see, Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 17625/05

  CHODYNICKI v. POLAND

  The Court has already dealt with the issue of lustration (see, for instance, Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, ECHR 2006-...; Matyjek, cited above; and Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  MOSCICKI v. POLAND

  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; and Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.