Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 21.06.2011

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 8932/05, 56334/08, 20520/08, 34851/07, 34736/06, 34043/05, 15792/06, 2619/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,64581
EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 8932/05, 56334/08, 20520/08, 34851/07, 34736/06, 34043/05, 15792/06, 2619/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,64581)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.2013 - 8932/05, 56334/08, 20520/08, 34851/07, 34736/06, 34043/05, 15792/06, 2619/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,64581)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 2013 - 8932/05, 56334/08, 20520/08, 34851/07, 34736/06, 34043/05, 15792/06, 2619/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,64581)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,64581) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SIALKOWSKA ET 6 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

    SIALKOWSKA AND 6 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

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (12)

  • SG Berlin, 14.09.1955 - 15/12
    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 8932/05
    15/12/2009.

    Zapadka, Application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010.

    Paid on 15/12/2010.

    Zapadka, Application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010.

  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 8932/05
    2619/05.

    Zapadka, Application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010.

    Zapadka, Application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010.

  • EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34736/06

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 8932/05
    34736/06.

    Zebrowski, Application No. 34736/06, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012.

    Zebrowski, Application No. 34736/06, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012.

  • EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 29369/10

    MORICE v. FRANCE

    The question of freedom of expression is related to the independence of the legal profession, which is crucial for the effective functioning of the fair administration of justice (see Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 111, 22 March 2007).
  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09

    INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND

    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).

    The Court is satisfied that in the present case the courts made efforts in order to make it possible for the applicant to avail himself of the possibility of rectifying formal shortcomings of his efforts to have his case brought before the Supreme Administrative Court within a reasonable time-frame (see Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 39, where the applicant had nine days within which to avail herself of the possibility of seeking leave to appeal by way of a privately hired lawyer; or Smyk v. Poland, referred to above, § 63-64, where the applicant had seven days; compare and contrast, Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 122, 22 March 2007, where the applicant had only three days left).

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05

    [ENG]

    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 45213/07

    CHOROBIK v. POLAND

    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 57944/08

    KEDRA v. POLAND

    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07

    [ENG]

    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, 09.04.2013 - 1735/09

    OWCZARZAK v. POLAND

    The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Bakowska v. Poland, cited above § 44-48, Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 121-129, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-61, 28 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 40466/05

    SZYMANOWSKI v. POLAND

    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05

    [ENG]

    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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05, 15792/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,57219
EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05, 15792/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,57219)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.06.2011 - 34043/05, 15792/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,57219)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Juni 2011 - 34043/05, 15792/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,57219)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,57219) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

    SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    In so far as the Government referred to the compensatory remedies and argued that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, the Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected such arguments in previous cases (e.g. Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 59, 22 March 2007; Subicka v. Poland, referred to above, § 28, 14 September 2010).

    The applicant referred to the Court's finding of a violation of the Convention in the case of Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007.

    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009, and Subicka v. Poland, referred to above, § 40).

  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009, and Subicka v. Poland, referred to above, § 40).

    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, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03

    KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

    ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    The Court reiterates that, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).
  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009, and Subicka v. Poland, referred to above, § 40).
  • EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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, 06.07.2010 - 648/02

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

    ARCINSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05
    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, 03.11.2009 - 651/07

    WITKOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  • RG, 21.09.1908 - I 513/08

    Zum Begriff des "Bildwerks" im Sinne von § 44 Abs. 3 Gew.O. und von Art. 5 Abs. 2 …

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht