Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUPIEC v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 16828/02

  The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 23-33 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 June 2001 in the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; see also Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39).
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73547/01

  JEDAMSKI AND JEDAMSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 16828/02

  The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 23-33 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 June 2001 in the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; see also Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 17271/21

  I.W. v. POLAND and 7 other applications

  Consequently, it does not discern sufficient grounds to accept that it was grossly exaggerated or unrealistic (compare Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011, and, mutatis mutandis, Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, § 47, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 22840/07

  HARRISON MCKEE v. HUNGARY

  In this respect it must be stressed that applicants who deliberately inflate the value of their claims for compensation cannot be expected to be exempted entirely from the payment of court fees or from the requirement to contribute in a reasonable amount to the costs of taking the action (see Kupiec v. Poland no. 16828/02, § 49, 3 February 2009; and Kuczera v. Poland, no. 275/02, § 45, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 34216/07

  [ENG]

  They referred in this connection to the view expressed by the Court in the case of Kupiec v. Poland (no. 16828/02, 3 February 2009) that applicants who deliberately inflated the value of their claims could not be expected to be exempted entirely from the payment of court fees or from the requirement to contribute a reasonable amount to the costs of taking the action.

• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  CHORBADZHIYSKI AND KRASTEVA v. BULGARIA

  While the Court does not doubt that their claims were genuine and serious, it considers that the amount sought in damages was rather excessive as to its quantum (compare Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, § 49, 3 February 2009, where the Court found the applicant's claim to have been "grossly exaggerated and unrealistic", and Kuczera v. Poland, no. 275/02, § 46, 14 September 2010 in which the Court considered the amount of compensation claimed by the applicant to have been "exaggerated").
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 33686/22
  Had he claimed a more reasonable amount, the court fees required would have been lower (see Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011, and Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, §§ 6 and 47, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 1783/04

  [ENG]

  Assuming that the dispute in the present case was "genuine and serious" within the meaning of the Court's case-law (see Kupiec v. Poland, no 16828/02, § 47, 3 February 2009), the Court finds that when entering into risky litigation over contested debts amounting to almost PLN 90, 000,000 the applicant company must have been aware of the obligation to pay court fees.
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 78352/14

  SEPCZYNSKI v. POLAND

  Relying on the Court's case Kupiec v. Poland (no. 16828/02, 3 February 2009), the Government argued that applicants who deliberately inflate the value of their claims for compensation cannot be expected to be exempted entirely from the payment of court fees or from the requirement to contribute a reasonable amount toward the costs of taking the action.
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46040/07

  MARINA v. LATVIA

  The Government considered that the court fee imposed on the applicant was proportionate because, first, the applicant herself failed to provide the national court with any further evidence which would enable it to objectively assess her actual financial situation, and that the applicant's reference to her status of a low-income person was insufficient proof; and secondly, the Government differentiated the instant complaint from the Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005 and other similar applications already examined by the Court, and found similarities with the application Kupiec v Poland, no. 16828/02, 3 February 2009, in that, in the instant case, the applicant had deliberately inflated the value of her claim and that the court fee would be automatically decreased had the applicant herself claimed a reasonable amount of compensation.
• EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 59667/14

  BOYCHEV c. BULGARIE

  S'il est vrai que le requérant s'est vu accorder 20 % du montant de sa demande initiale, rien dans le dossier et les arguments du Gouvernement ne permet de considérer que le montant de cette dernière (environ 2 500 EUR) était « grossièrement exagéré et irréaliste'(voir, a contrario, Kupiec c. Pologne, no 16828/02, § 49, 3 février 2009, pour une demande jugée « grossièrement exagérée et irréaliste ", Kuczera c. Pologne, no 275/02, § 46, 14 septembre 2010, où la Cour a considéré que le montant de l'indemnisation réclamée par le requérant était « exagéré ", et Chorbadzhiyski et Krasteva, précité, § 62, où la Cour a estimé que le montant demandé en dommages et intérêts était plutôt excessif quant à son quantum).
• EGMR, 09.07.2020 - 69143/12

  RECHUL c. POLOGNE

  In view of the weight of the applicant's grievances and the duration of the alleged suffering, his compensation claim does not appear grossly exaggerated and unrealistic (contrast, Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011 and, mutatis mutandis, Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, §§ 6 and 47, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 57449/13

  GRABOWSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 29754/11

  PACHNICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38774/05

  ZELCER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 275/02

  KUCZERA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 17157/16

  STOYANOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 31667/12

  BUCZEK c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 61118/13

  POLOWNIAK c. POLOGNE