Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANUS v. POLAND

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  DROZDOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of correspondence is stated in the Court's in the cases of Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no 37641/97, 2 December 2003, and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, 6 December 2005.

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  Any relevance that the latter judgments might possibly have in respect of the present case is therefore reduced by the fact that that they were given after the relevant time and the latter one after the applicant's death (see, for example, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 57, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  Having regard to the fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant lasted almost four years and that the case was heard three times by the first-instance court, it is questionable whether those grounds could be considered "relevant" and "sufficient" throughout the entire period and whether the authorities showed the necessary diligence in dealing with the case (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).
• EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

  X c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  The Court recalls that when an applicant dies during the proceedings, the next-of-kin of the applicant has a legitimate interest to justify the continuation of the examination of the case (see, for example, Lukanov v. Bulgaria, 20 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, § 35; Fojcik v. Poland, no. 57670/00, § 46, 21 September 2004; X v. France, 31 March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, p. 89, § 26 and Kozimor v. Poland, no. 10816/02, §§ 25-29, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).