Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEWAK v. POLAND

  Art. 8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  Having regard to the procedural requirements of Article 3 (for which, see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV and Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, §§ 61-62, 12 April 2007), the Court finds that there were no discernible shortcomings in the investigation.
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  Any relevance that the latter judgment might possibly have in respect of the present case is therefore reduced by the fact that that it was given after the relevant time (see, for example, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 57, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 92/03

  PISK-PISKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees' letters with the "censored" stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003 and Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005, Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006).

• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 37641/97

  MATWIEJCZUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees' letters with the "censored" stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003 and Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005, Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99

  KWIEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to detained persons (see Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006, Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46702/99

  DZWONKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  Having regard to the procedural requirements of Article 3 (for which, see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV and Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, §§ 61-62, 12 April 2007), the Court finds that there were no discernible shortcomings in the investigation.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI ET 57 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  21890/03.
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  POROWSKI v. POLAND

  Any relevance that the latter judgment might possibly have to the present case is therefore reduced by the fact that it was given long after the interference in question and the lodging of the application with the Court (see, for example, Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, §§ 25-27, 6 September 2007; and, in contrast, Biśta v. Poland, no. 22807/07, §§ 47-50, 12 January 2010).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07

  MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND

  The Government emphasised that in several cases examined by the Court the applicants who had brought Article 3 complaints had first made use of that remedy and the Court had not contested its effectiveness (Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, 12 April 2007; Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, 6 September 2007).

• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 19218/07

  [ENG]

  For these reasons, the Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed (see Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 25, 6 September 2007, and Wenerski v. Poland, no. 44369/02, § 71, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 23623/07

  [ENG]

  Hence, any relevance that those judgments might possibly have in respect of the present case is reduced by the fact that they were given after the relevant time (see, among other authorities, Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 25, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, § 29, 8 January 2008; and Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, § 18, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 8260/04

  OCHLIK v. POLAND

  For these reasons, the Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed (see Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 26, 6 September 2007).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 44025/08

  FRIEDENSBERG v. POLAND

  The Court reiterates that in many previous cases it held that when the interference with a prisoner's correspondence occurred before the date of the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal relied on by the Government any possible relevance was reduced by the fact that this judgment had been given after the censorship had occurred (see, among other authorities, Pasternak v. Poland, no. 42785/06, § 30, 16 July 2009; Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 25, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, § 29, 8 January 2008; and Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, § 18, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

  [ENG]

  In numerous cases concerning the monitoring of prisoners" correspondence with the Court it was settled practice that the Court would raise of its own motion the issues of compliance with Article 8 and, in some cases also of compliance with Article 34 of the Convention (see, amongst many others, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 20, 14 June 2005; Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, § 19, 6 December 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 52, 4 May 2006; Maksym v. Poland, no. 14450/02, § 20, 19 December 2006; Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 20, 6 September 2007; Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, § 56, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, § 23, 8 January 2008; Dzitkowski v. Poland, no. 35833/03, § 50, 27 November 2007, Stepniak v. Poland, no. 29366/03, § 14, 29 January 2008, Miernicki v. Poland, no. 10847/02, § 75, 27 October 2009).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34907/05

  HINCZEWSKI v. POLAND

  For these reasons, the Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed (see Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 25, 6 September 2007, and Wenerski v. Poland, no. 44369/02, § 71, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  BISTA v. POLAND

  For further references concerning the relevant domestic law and practice concerning monitoring of correspondence, see, among other authorities, Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 25, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, § 29, 8 January 2008; Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, § 18, 3 June 2008.
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 45133/06

  ZBOROWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 11562/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 42332/06

  BEREZA c. POLOGNE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 19495/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 42785/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 26846/05

  CWIERTNIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 31038/06

  ANDRYSIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 39519/05

  ZBOROWSKI v. POLAND (N° 3)
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 39655/05

  SOBOLEWSKI c. POLOGNE (N° 1)