Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02 |
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 ... (57) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
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). - 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 12.03.2024 - 24127/17
IBRAHIM v. AZERBAIJAN
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007). - EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 62954/00
TANASE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the Government's declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland ((dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007); Kalanyos and Others (cited above, §§ 34-36); Gergely (cited above, § 22); and Lazàr v. Romania ((dec.), no. 30159/03, 25 November 2008). - EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
MAMULASHVILI 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 (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 Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
- EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 19923/10
PATERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
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 (Preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; Golebiewska v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43153/08, 17 May 2011). - EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 70820/10
TABAGARI 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 (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 Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007). - EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 32777/09
BOLTAN v. TURKEY
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; also WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; Karal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011; and Barıs Ä°nan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20315/10, 24 May 2011). - EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 38622/10
BADAY v. TURKEY
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; also WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; Karal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011; and Barıs Ä°nan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20315/10, 24 May 2011). - EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 39420/08
TILKI v. TURKEY
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; Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-IX; Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, § 24, 18 July 2006; Kalanyos and Others v. Romania, no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v Portugal (dec.) no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; and Karal c. Turquie (dec.) no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011). - 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, 14.12.2021 - 18945/10
VOSKERCHYAN v. ARMENIA
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 133, 23 February 2017, concerning a request to strike out part of an application). - EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 45022/16
ZAHARIA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 66210/09
ERSÖNMEZ AND SEVIK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 5609/08
BULIA AND KVINIKADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 31197/06
OBOLADZE AND LOBZHANIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 46780/07
KASRADZEEBI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 31420/10
KAVTELADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 10300/07
MIMINOSHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 35199/10
JAPARIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 17775/09
TSIKLAURI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 2228/10
GAMTSEMLIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 17707/10
NIC GIBB v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 19882/07
MAZANASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 13143/08
VAN GALEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 46161/11
GIL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09
KOC v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 22551/05
ERDONMEZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 17293/07
GÖÇMEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 34144/08
SAN AND KURA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 38360/09
CELEBIOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 57758/08
KIZILTOPRAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 31511/07
AVSAR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39148/09
SADAY v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 7383/06
OZENBAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42942/06
BAYDILLI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 42011/07
NADOLINSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 9829/11
KHANIPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 31390/08
BALABANOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 43443/04
CHERVYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 51603/09
BASILASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 78205/11
OSUCH v. POLAND
- EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 14543/06
KHODAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 16206/06
BERIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 41925/06
MURATSPAHIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- 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, 18.05.2010 - 31103/06
CUBAN v. THE NETHERLANDS (V)
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 27067/05
SZASZ v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 38510/05
SERAFIM v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 42974/05
S.c. PATIROM S.A. v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 42268/04
LORINCZ v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 9028/05
ROMPA v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 52288/13
MAYER v. LIECHTENSTEIN
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 10470/07
MOL v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 26104/06
POPA VALENTIN IUSTIN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 34399/05
HEINSE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 11602/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA AND SPÓLKA Z O.O. FILMSET v. POLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 11602/02
- EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02