Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIGON v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  However, that very regulation ran counter to the requirements of the Convention, in particular those formulated by the Court in its Lamy v. Belgium judgment of 30 March 1989 (Series A no. 151).

  More specifically, the Court reiterates that a certain degree of access to the case-file, if only to such an extent as to afford the detainee an opportunity of effectively challenging evidence on which his detention was based, may in certain instances be envisaged in proceedings concerning review of the lawfulness of detention on remand (see the Lamy v. Belgium judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29).

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  According to the Court's case-law, it follows from the wording of Article 6 - and particularly from the autonomous meaning to be given to the notion of "criminal charge" - that this provision can be applied to pre-trial proceedings (see the Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  As regards the claim for the alleged damage suffered as a result of the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in certain cases which concerned violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 it has made modest awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 25 April 1983 (Article 50), Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13, and the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 29, § 65).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  44-45, § 9; the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 19, § 46; the Toth v. Austria judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 224, p. 24, § 91; the Kampanis v. Greece judgment cited above, p. 49, § 66; Hood v. the United Kingdom [G.C.], no 27267/95, 18.02.1999, §§ 84-87; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria cited above, § 76; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 89).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40).
• EGMR, 31.01.2002 - 24430/94

  LANZ v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40).
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  As regards the claim for the alleged damage suffered as a result of the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in certain cases which concerned violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 it has made modest awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 25 April 1983 (Article 50), Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13, and the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 29, § 65).

• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Tout en observant que le requérant n'a pas soumis de note d'honoraires s'agissant du Queen's Counsel (Ciborek c. Pologne, no 52037/99, § 63, 4 novembre 2003), la Cour reconnaît que le requérant a dû avoir des frais à cet égard puisque cet avocat a assisté et plaidé à l'audience de Strasbourg (Migon c. Pologne, no 24244/94, § 95, 25 juin 2002).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 29687/96

  WESOLOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Pour déterminer si une procédure offre les « garanties fondamentales de procédure appliquées en matière de privation de liberté ", il faut avoir égard à la nature particulière des circonstances dans lesquelles elle se déroule (voir, entre autres, l'arrêt Megyeri c. Allemagne du 12 mai 1992, série A no 237-A, pp. 11-12, § 22 ; Migon c. Pologne, no 24244/94, arrêt du 25 juin 2002 ; Wloch c. Pologne arrêt du 19 octobre 2000, CEDH 2000-XI, § 125).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  LASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  While national law may satisfy this requirement in various ways, whatever method is chosen should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment thereon (see, Lietzow cited above, Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001, Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I and Migon v. Poland, no. 24244/94, § 79, 25 June 2002).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 34579/05

  A. J. HADJIHANNA BROS (TOURIST ENTERPRISES) LTD. & HADJIHANNAS v. CYPRUS

  Even though the applicants have not submitted any documentary evidence of the expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court, the Court acknowledges that they must have incurred certain expenses in those proceedings, particularly since they were represented by a lawyer (see Migon v. Poland, no. 24244/94, § 95, 25 June 2002, and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 9013/02

  SWIERZKO c. POLOGNE

  Comme j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de l'exprimer précédemment (Migon c. Pologne, no 24244/94, 25 juin 2002 et Kingsley c. Royaume Uni [GC], no 35605/97, CEDH 2002-IV entre autres), lorsque la Cour conclut à la violation d'une des dispositions de la Convention et que le droit interne ne permet d'effacer qu'imparfaitement les conséquences d'une telle violation - condition requise part l'article 41- l'octroi d'une satisfaction équitable en réparation du dommage moral devrait être la règle et la décision que le simple constat de violation représente en soi une satisfaction équitable devrait être l'exception.