Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BELKA v. POLAND
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (19)
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96
MENNITTO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, among other authorities, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000-X, Zwiazek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego v. Poland, no. 42049/98, § 28, ECHR 2004-IX).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, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02
JAKOWICZ v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
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).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).
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06
KADLUCZKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
The relevant law and practice concerning the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kadluczka v. Poland, no. 31438/06, §§ 19-45, 2 February 2010.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).
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
The purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
The rule in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 (with which it has a close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of an individual's Convention rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00
TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
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, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
DEMICOLI v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
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, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83
BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
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, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80
H. v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
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, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
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, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 42049/98
ZWIAZEK NAUCZYCIELSTWA POLSKIEGO v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01
Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 04.09.2007 - 45563/04
A.N.R.P.und 275 andere gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 14849/08
E. u. a. ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
KROSTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06
KOSTKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 9717/05
EPSTEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 31918/08
MERSCHDORF ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
Eu égard au large pouvoir d'appréciation des États lorsqu'ils mettent en place des mécanismes de réparation de préjudices causés dans un passé antérieur à l'entrée en vigueur de la Convention à leur égard, notamment lorsqu'il s'agit de déterminer les modalités et les bénéficiaires de la réparation (Belka c. Pologne, no 20870/04, § 27, 18 mai 2010), la Cour considère que la différence de traitement critiquée par les requérants avait une justification objective et raisonnable.