Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JALOWIECKI v. POLAND

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07

  The Court had already dealt with the issue of lustration proceedings in the Turek v. Slovakia case (no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)) and in Ä?damsons v. Latvia (no. 3669/03, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07

  It is not for the Court to speculate on what might have been the outcome of the proceedings had they complied with the fairness requirements of Article 6 (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 128, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07

  The Court firstly reiterates 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, 25.09.2014 - 38184/03

  MATYJEK ET 11 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07

  The Court firstly 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, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  ZAYTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served ex officio with a written copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment (see Jalowiecki v. Poland, no. 34030/07, § 21, 17 February 2009, Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 30, ECHR 1999-II, and Worm v. Austria, § 33, 29 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V).