Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEON AND AGNIESZKA KANIA v. POLAND

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99

  KOSS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  For a presentation of the relevant domestic law, see Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, 8 February 2006; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006; and Borysiewicz, no. 71146/01, 1 July 2008.

  The Court recalls that, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, as well as the inactivity of relevant authorities, it has already held that in order to be "effective" such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that has already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, and Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, § 43, 28 March 2006).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  The Court recalls that, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, as well as the inactivity of relevant authorities, it has already held that in order to be "effective" such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that has already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, and Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, § 43, 28 March 2006).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postepowaniu sadowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwloki) ("the 2004 Act"), are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V; Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII; and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  The assessment of that minimum is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the intensity and duration of the nuisance, and its physical or mental effects (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 68-69, ECHR 2005-IV, and Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  The assessment of that minimum is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the intensity and duration of the nuisance, and its physical or mental effects (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 68-69, ECHR 2005-IV, and Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04).
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 62101/00

  FURLEPA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  The Court reiterates at the outset that there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, but where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kindgom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII; López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, § 40; and Furlepa v. Poland (dec.), no. 62101/00, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  The Court reiterates at the outset that there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, but where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kindgom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII; López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, § 40; and Furlepa v. Poland (dec.), no. 62101/00, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  The Court reiterates at the outset that there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, but where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kindgom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII; López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, § 40; and Furlepa v. Poland (dec.), no. 62101/00, 18 March 2008).

• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 43449/02

  MILEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  It came to the same conclusion in Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland (no. 12605/03, §§ 101-03, 21 July 2009), which concerned noise from a lorry maintenance and metal-cutting and grinding workshop, and in Galev and Others (cited above), which concerned noise from a dentist's surgery.
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 49725/11

  WCISLO AND CABAJ v. POLAND

  The Court has already examined the effectiveness of the combination of remedies for excessively lengthy administrative proceedings and found them found them effective (see, among other authorities, Bukowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38665/97, 11 June 2002; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 43-49, 28 March 2006; Turczanik v. Poland, no. 38064/97, § 54, ECHR 2005-VI; Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland, no. 12605/03, §§ 89-90, 21 July 2009 and Derda v. Poland, no. 58154/08, § 58, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 13274/07

  ROMAN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Cependant, il lui faut déterminer si, du fait de leur intensité, ces nuisances ont atteint le seuil minimum de gravité pour tomber sous le coup de l'article 8 de la Convention (Leon et Agnieszka Kania c. Pologne, no 12605/03, § 101, 21 juillet 2009).

 
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 25002/09

  FRANKOWSKI ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  Il faut toutefois déterminer si l'intensité de ces désagréments a atteint un seuil minimum de gravité prescrit par la jurisprudence (Leon et Agnieszka Kania c. Pologne, no 12605/03, § 101, 21 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  GALEV & OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In the Court's view, it cannot be assumed, on the face of it, that the noise emanating from a dentist's surgery, be it that emitted by the medical equipment or that resulting from patients" entering and leaving the premises, rises above the usual level of noise in an apartment block in a modern town (compare with Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 11-27 and 116-18, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004, concerning aircraft noise; with Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, §§ 9-19, 45 and 58-60, ECHR 2004-X, concerning noise from night clubs; with Ruano Morcuende v. Spain (dec.), no. 75287/01, 6 September 2005, concerning noise from an electric transformer; with Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008, concerning noise from a wind turbine; with Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, §§ 5 and 52-55, 1 July 2008, concerning noise from a tailoring workshop; and with Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland, no. 12605/03, §§ 5 and 101-03, 21 July 2009, concerning noise from a lorry maintenance and metal cutting and grinding workshop).
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 6854/07

  APANASEWICZ c. POLOGNE

  Et comme le Gouvernement l'a admis dans ses observations, à présent il convient de déterminer si, du fait de leur intensité, les nuisances subies par la requérante ont atteint le seuil minimum de gravité pour que la responsabilité des autorités nationales au regard de l'article 8 de la Convention puisse être engagée (Leon et Agnieszka Kania c. Pologne, no 12605/03, § 101, 21 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 25194/08

  PLACHTA ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence bien établie selon laquelle, pour que l'article 8 soit applicable à une affaire donnée, les désagréments subis par les intéressés doivent atteindre un seuil minimum de gravité (Leon et Agnieszka Kania c. Pologne, no 12605/03, § 101, 21 juillet 2009).