Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENNICH-ZALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 3417/02

  LUPACESCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 31976/03, 13681/03, and 32759/03, 21 March 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  Given its jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Court can only consider the period which has elapsed since 1 May 1993, although it will have regard to the stage reached in the proceedings on that date (see, among other authorities, Zwierzynski v. Poland, no. 30210/96, § 123, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  In such circumstances, the State cannot simply remain passive and "there is... no room to distinguish between acts and omissions" (see, mutatis mutandis, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 14, § 25).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  As regards the right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, such positive obligations may entail certain measures necessary to protect the right to property (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55), even in cases involving litigation between private individuals or companies (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-... and Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 67, 1 February 2005).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  From the ratification date onwards, all the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  From the ratification date onwards, all the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 51837/99

  BELLER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 67, 1 February 2005).

• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 62903/15

  KURT v. AUSTRIA

  Eu égard à cette conclusion, la Cour estime qu'il n'y a pas lieu de statuer sur l'exception préliminaire soulevée par le Gouvernement pour non-épuisement des voies de recours internes (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bennich-Zalewski c. Pologne, no 59857/00, § 98, 22 avril 2008).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 43934/07

  TARNOWSKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Zwierzynski v. Poland, no. 34049/96, § 63-74, ECHR 2001-VI, and Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, judgment of 22 April 2008.

  Hence, the decision to set aside the final expropriation decision had consequences for the applicants which should be regarded as conferring on them a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, judgment of 22 April 2008, § 90).

• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  TARNOWSKI v. POLAND (No. 1)

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Zwierzynski v. Poland, no. 34049/96, § 63-74, ECHR 2001-VI, and Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, judgment of 22 April 2008.

  Under the provisions of Polish law such a decision should be regarded as conferring on the applicants a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, judgment of 22 April 2008, § 90).

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In the present case, the question whether the annulment of decision no. 9 and of the corresponding entries in the register of companies, albeit favourable to the applicants, afforded them sufficient redress is closely related to the substance of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, §§ 76-77, 22 April 2008).
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  WOZNIAK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The Court's competence ratione temporis to deal with the applications is therefore not excluded (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, §§ 74-75, 22 April 2008).