Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 38206/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2008,60245
EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 38206/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,60245)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.09.2008 - 38206/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,60245)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. September 2008 - 38206/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,60245)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,60245) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (20)  

  • EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 38190/05

    FIGIEL v. POLAND (No. 1)

    The Government requested that the present application be joined to application no. 38206/05, which was lodged by the applicant (Figiel v. Poland (no. 2)) and which concerned the length of another and unrelated set of civil proceedings.

    Application no. 38206/05.

  • EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 12738/10

    JEUNESSE c. PAYS-BAS

    The Court reiterates that the expression "effective remedy" used in Article 13 cannot be interpreted as a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006; and Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 33, 16 September 2008).).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 7589/12

    BRAJER v. POLAND

    However, the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla, cited above, § 154, §§ 156-157; Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 31, 16 September 2008).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 7708/12

    TOMCZYK v. POLAND

    However, the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla, cited above, § 154, §§ 156-157; Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 31, 16 September 2008).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 9635/12

    KUROWSKI v. POLAND

    However, the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla, cited above, § 154, §§ 156-157; Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 31, 16 September 2008).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 7626/12

    MASLOWSKI v. POLAND

    However, the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla, cited above, § 154, §§ 156-157; Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 31, 16 September 2008).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 31193/04

    KRYSTYNA MISIAK AND JAN MISIAK v. POLAND

    The Court further reiterates that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for example, Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 33, 16 September 2008, and Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006).
  • EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 20127/08

    POLKOWSKA v. POLAND

    The Court reiterates further that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for example, Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 33, 16 September 2008, and Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 32501/09

    ZIRAJEWSKI v. POLAND

    However, the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla, cited above, § 154, §§ 156-157; Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 31, 16 September 2008).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 4551/10

    POSTEK v. POLAND

    With regard to the applicant's complaint, it should be recalled that the Court has already found that the 2004 Act provides for an effective remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V; Figiel v. Poland (no. 1), no. 38190/05, §§ 25-30, 17 July 2008; Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, §§ 29-34, 16 September 2008).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 77103/13

    BASZCZY?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 4282/10

    RUTKOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2311/10

    PURPIAN SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 20982/07

    PRADZYNSKA - POZDNIAKOW v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 28078/10

    GAWRYCH AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 49281/09

    DA?ƒKO v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 51542/09

    JAKUBISIAK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 13388/09

    LEMANOWICZ v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 39413/06

    KOWALSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 858/08

    RADOSZEWSKA-ZAKOSCIELNA v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht