Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOSTKA v. POLAND

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  WOS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  The Court recalls that in the Wos judgment (see, Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02, ECHR 2006-VII) it examined a similar complaint in respect of the first compensation scheme, set up on the basis of the bilateral Polish-German agreement of 16 October 1991 and found Article 6 § 1 applicable to the proceedings before the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.

  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).

  Article 6 § 1 requires that in the determination of civil rights and obligations, decisions taken by administrative or other authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article be subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Wos v. Poland, no. 22860/02, § 92, ECHR 2006-VII).

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96

  MENNITTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  In reaching that conclusion, the Court had regard, inter alia, to the similarities between the compensation claims asserted before the Foundation and disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits, which generally fall within the scope of Article 6 (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 39, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 77, ECHR 2005-V).

 
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X, § 51).
• EGMR, 04.09.2007 - 45563/04

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  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, 12.05.2009 - 14849/08

  E. u. a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  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, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  In reaching that conclusion, the Court had regard, inter alia, to the similarities between the compensation claims asserted before the Foundation and disputes over entitlement to social security and welfare benefits, which generally fall within the scope of Article 6 (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-X; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 39, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  As regards procedural guarantees, it appears that the adjudicating commissions had no clear and publicly-available rules of procedure (see H v. Belgium, 30 November 1987, § 53, Series A no. 127-B) and did not hold public hearings.
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  According to the Court's settled case-law, a tribunal within the meaning of that provision must satisfy a series of requirements -independence, in particular of the executive, impartiality, duration of its members' terms of office, and guarantees afforded by its procedure -several of which appear in the text of Article 6 § 1 itself (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 64, Series A no. 132; Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, § 39, Series A no. 210; and Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 233, ECHR 2001-IV).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06

  According to the Court's settled case-law, a tribunal within the meaning of that provision must satisfy a series of requirements -independence, in particular of the executive, impartiality, duration of its members' terms of office, and guarantees afforded by its procedure -several of which appear in the text of Article 6 § 1 itself (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 64, Series A no. 132; Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, § 39, Series A no. 210; and Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 233, ECHR 2001-IV).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 9717/05

  EPSTEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02

  JAKOWICZ v. POLAND

• 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).