Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant 's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  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 criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of 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).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant 's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 13990/04

  MIEDZYZAKLADOWA SPOLDZIELNIA MIESZKANIOWA

  The Court further recalls that guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention do not apply to proceedings in which re-opening of the proceedings terminated by a final decision are sought (see, among many other authorities, Rudan v. Croatia (dec.), no. 45943/99, 13 September 2001; Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 35, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 21534/05

  CONSTANTIN FLOREA c. ROUMANIE

  Or, il n'est pas déraisonnable de penser que ces questions liées à la compétence des instances et les cassations répétées ont causé des retards qui ne sauraient être imputés au requérant (voir, mutatis mutandis, Wierciszewska c. Pologne, no 41431/98, § 46, 25 novembre 2003, SC Concept Ltd SRL et Manole c. Roumanie, no 42907/02, § 51, 22 novembre 2007 et Didu c. Roumanie, no 34814/02, § 29, 14 avril 2009).
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 45190/07

  JEANS v. CROATIA

  Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the domestic courts' decisions, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is frequently ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see, for example, Mamic v. Slovenia (no. 2), no. 75778/01, § 35, ECHR 2006-X (extracts); and Wierciszewska v. Poland, no.41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).

 
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 65965/01

  PAROISSE GRECO-CATHOLIQUE SFANTUL VASILE POLONA c. ROUMANIE

  Elle soutient en outre que la durée de la procédure est imputable aux tribunaux, ceux-ci ayant annulé à cinq reprises des décisions pour des défauts de procédure pouvant être reprochés aux tribunaux inférieurs, ce qui lui paraît démontrer une déficience sérieuse dans le système judiciaire national (Wierciszewska c. Pologne, no 41431/98, § 46, 25 novembre 2003).
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 36545/02

  MOROZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the quality of the case-law of the domestic courts, it observes that, since remittal is usually ordered because of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system (Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 52045/13

  JOVICIC v. SLOVENIA

  Further delays occurred owing to remittals of the case on appeal, for which the applicant also cannot be blamed (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Dezelak v. Slovenia, no. 1438/02, § 25, 6 April 2006).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 29784/07

  STOILKOVSKA v.

  In this connection, it reiterates that repeated remittal orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003 and Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005) Having regard to the criteria laid down in its case-law for assessing the reasonable-time requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Philis v. Greece (no. 2), judgment of 27 June 1997, Reports 1997-IV, § 35; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, ECHR 2000-IV), the Court considers that the proceedings were unduly prolonged, for which the respondent State bears sole responsibility.
• EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 21308/06

  ZELE v. SLOVENIA

  That deficiency is attributable to the authorities, not the applicant (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20578/05

  HASKO v. TURKEY

  It reiterates that the repeated quashing and remittal of lower court decisions for re-examination are usually ordered as a result of errors committed by the latter, which, within one set of proceedings, discloses a deficiency in the operation of the legal system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008).
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 21377/04

  ER v. TURKEY

  It reiterates that the repeated quashing and remittal of lower court decisions for re-examination are usually ordered as a result of errors committed by the latter, which, within one set of proceedings, discloses a deficiency in the operation of the legal system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003; Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 9522/03

  BALTUTAN AND ANO INSAAT VE TICARET LTD. STI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 8349/13

  FREITAS v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 1278/06

  TKACHENKO c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 35909/06

  TROFIMOVA AND ZYLKOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 36619/05

  KRYZHANIVSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 32764/06

  BURYAK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.12.2011 - 44654/06

  PETROV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 26036/02

  CENOIU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 31334/03

  IOAN MOLDOVAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 36949/02

  PAVLOVSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 22775/03

  FANDRALYUK v. UKRAINE