Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 11602/02
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

Wird zitiert von ... (102)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99

  MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99

  MAJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 56026/00

  WENDE AND KUKOWKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 25754/94

  HARAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's unilateral declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court's awards in similar cases), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002).
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

  KUSMIEREK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

  KRASUSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

  ZYNGER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 38206/05

  FIGIEL v. POLAND (No. 2)

  On the facts and for the reasons set out above, in particular the amount of compensation proposed, the Court finds that the Government have failed to provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see, a contrario, Spólka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 21695/05

  TUR v. POLAND

  On the facts and for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Spólka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 43443/04

  CHERVYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).

• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 39912/06

  [ENG]

  On the facts and for the reasons set out above, in particular the amount of compensation proposed, the Court finds that the Government have failed to provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see, conversely, Spólka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 28692/06

  VOORHUIS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In deciding whether or not it should strike this part of the application out of its list, the Court will have regard to the criteria emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; and also Haran v. Turkey (striking out), no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002; Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, ECHR 2001-VI; Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, 29 September 2005; and WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 38190/05

  FIGIEL v. POLAND (No. 1)

  On the facts and for the reasons set out above, in particular the amount of compensation proposed, the Court finds that the Government have failed to provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see, a contrario, Spólka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 19882/07

  GIORGI MAZANASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 70820/10

  [ENG]

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 46161/11

  GIL v. POLAND

  To this end, the Court will carefully examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, § 31, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 55777/08

  [ENG]

  On the facts, and for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Spólka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 24127/17

  IBRAHIM v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 59955/15

  ZAREBA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 11757/15

  WOLOSOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 32777/09

  BOLTAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 32440/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 29130/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 4551/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 39420/08

  TILKI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 32440/08

  GUT v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 40748/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 13401/03

  PARDUS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29539/07

  MAGOCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 62954/00

  TANASE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 40387/06

  KRAWCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 18945/10

  VOSKERCHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 45022/16

  ZAHARIA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 66210/09

  ERSÖNMEZ AND SEVIK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 42011/07

  NADOLINSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 31390/08

  BALABANOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 5609/08

  BULIA AND KVINIKADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 46780/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 31420/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 10300/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 35199/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 17775/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 78205/11

  OSUCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 2228/10

  GAMTSEMLIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 17707/10

  NIC GIBB v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 14543/06

  KHODAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 13143/08

  VAN GALEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 19923/10

  PATERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 16206/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 20920/09

  BANCZYK AND SZTUKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  KOC v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 41925/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 22551/05

  ERDONMEZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 38360/09

  CELEBIOGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 17293/07

  GÖÇMEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 57758/08

  KIZILTOPRAK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 31511/07

  AVSAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 34144/08

  SAN AND KURA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39148/09

  SADAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42942/06

  BAYDILLI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 4382/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 50537/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 35965/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 6433/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 1730/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 39489/08

  DEEG v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 33582/08

  SEWERYN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31103/06

  CUBAN v. THE NETHERLANDS (V)
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 8518/08

  KANIEWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 49490/08

  PRZYBYLSKA-CONROY v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 21670/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 42401/08

  WISNIEWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 40909/08

  KULIK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 40219/08

  POTONIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 44581/08

  HERMANOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 20127/08

  POLKOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 858/08

  RADOSZEWSKA-ZAKOSCIELNA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 40807/07

  ANDRULEWICZ v. POLAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33429/07

  KORCZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 20982/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 33744/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 473/07

  WRONSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13933/04

  KESICCY v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 23668/03

  WYSOCKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 31748/06

  LUDWICZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 49788/06

  KRZYSZTOF KANIEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 9829/11

  KHANIPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 52288/13

  MAYER v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 51603/09

  BASILASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 37147/09

  KAURIN v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 1472/07

  KAURIN v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 32086/10

  VERTOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 1535/06

  MARKOVA v. BULGARIA (II)
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 27067/05

  SZASZ v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 38510/05

  SERAFIM v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 42268/04

  LORINCZ v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 9028/05

  ROMPA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 31197/06

  OBOLADZE AND LOBZHANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 38622/10

  BADAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 7383/06

  OZENBAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 34653/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 5943/07

  GORDON-KRAJCER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 38426/03

  LIDIA NOWAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 10470/07

  MOL v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 42974/05

  S.c. PATIROM S.A. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 26104/06

  POPA VALENTIN IUSTIN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 34399/05

  HEINSE v. THE NETHERLANDS