Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KULIKOWSKI AND 12 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 18353/03
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18353/03
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06

Wird zitiert von ... (14)

• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06

  SUBICKA v. POLAND

  This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010 and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  KOWALCZYK v. POLAND

  This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

  SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

  This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).

  Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 Septembre 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011.

 
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05

  SLOWIK v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).

  The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).

• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07

  WRZESINSKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).

  The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08

  SIWIEC v. POLAND

  This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (see Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts), and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).
• EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 34118/11

  ORDRE DES AVOCATS DEFENSEURS ET AVOCATS PRES LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONACO c. MONACO

  Sa poursuite d'un but d'intérêt général, combiné avec la spécificité de la profession d'avocat relevée par la Cour dans sa jurisprudence, justifie qu'il ait qualité à agir contre les ingérences arbitraires des pouvoirs publics (cf. notamment André et autres c. France, précité, Kulikowski c. Pologne, no 18353/03, 19 mai 2009, Steur c. Pays-Bas, no 39657/98, CEDH 2003-XI, Nikula c. Finlande, no 31611/96, CEDH 2002-II, Kyprianou c. Chypre [GC], no 73797/01, CEDH 2005-XIII, et Gillberg c. Suède, no 41723/06, 2 novembre 2010).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05

  TOMCZYKOWSKI v. POLAND

  This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 56334/08

  JEDRZEJCZAK v. POLAND

  This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 20520/08

  KOCUREK v. POLAND

  This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34851/07

  KRAMARZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 45213/07

  CHOROBIK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09

  INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 57944/08

  KEDRA v. POLAND