Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 19795/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,67280) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WIACEK v. POLAND
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88
RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 19795/02
However, a serious penalty, like imprisonment or a heavy fine, for contempt of court could transform the proceedings into the determination of a criminal charge, which might attract the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention (cf. Ravnsborg v. Sweden, judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B, p. 30, § 34, Putz v. Austria, judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, p. 324, § 33).
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05
LUBOCH v. POLAND
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).