Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BISTA v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 43837/06

  MISIAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  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.

  As to the remaining cases cited by the Government, 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; and Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, § 18, 3 June 2008).

• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  In these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the instant case presented particular difficulties for the investigating authorities and for the courts to determine the facts and mount a case against the defendant as would undoubtedly have been the case had the proceedings concerned organised crime (see Celejewski, cited above and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 42785/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  As to the remaining cases cited by the Government, 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; and Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, § 18, 3 June 2008).

• RG, 10.02.1891 - 28/91

  Begründet die unterlassene Anmeldung der Verwendung bereits anderweitig …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  In support of their argument the Government invoked the domestic courts' practice concerning inter alia protection against noise (the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 March 1999, No. CRN 28/91) and the worship of a deceased person (the judgment of the Supreme Court of 13 January 1965).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  The Court reiterates that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial", as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-X, with further references).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.02.2005 - 12/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  12/04/2010.
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  At the outset the Court reiterates that it has already dealt with the question of the effectiveness of a constitutional complaint (see Szott-Medynska v. Poland, no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  LEWAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  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, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  KACPRZYK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  Moreover, according to the established case-law, having exhausted one available remedy, namely an appeal against the decision extending further his detention, the applicant was not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a constitutional complaint (see Kacprzyk v. Poland no. 50020/06, § 30, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 44521/04

  KOLODZINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  KLIZA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 49128/06

  KRAWIECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 39655/05

  SOBOLEWSKI c. POLOGNE (N° 1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  In essence, they repeated the observations that they had already made in other cases (see, for instance, Lewak v. Poland, no. 218990/03, 6 September 2007, §§ 21-22; Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, 3 June 2008, §§ 15-16; Pasternak v. Poland, 42785/06, 16 July 2009, §§ 24-26; and Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, 12 January 2010, § 26), maintaining that it had been open to the applicant to obtain redress at domestic level by means of that remedy.
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  [ENG]

  It further notes that in any event the arguments raised by the Government in the present case are similar to those already examined and rejected in previous cases against Poland (see, among other authorities, Bruczynski v. Poland, no. 19206/03, §§ 38-45, 4 November 2008, and Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, §§ 26-30, 12 January 2010).

  In so far as the Government refer to the compensatory remedies in respect of the alleged excessive length of detention, the Court reiterates that under the established case-law, having exhausted one available remedy, namely appeals against decisions further extending his detention, the applicant was not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing actions of compensatory character before the courts (see Kacprzyk v. Poland no. 50020/06, § 30, 21 July 2009; Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, § 29, 12 January 2010; Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, § 51, 8 November 2005; and Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, § 49, 19 January 2010).

• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

  [ENG]

  Secondly, the Government argued that the applicant has not resorted to a civil action for infringement of the secrecy of his correspondence under Articles 23 and 24 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code which the Court recognised as an effective domestic remedy in respect of the alleged breaches of Article 8 of the Convention (see, Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, 12 January 2010).

  The Court recalls that in the case of Bista v. Poland (no. 22807/07, 12 January 2010, §§ 44-49) it considered a similar objection concerning remedies to be used in cases of interference with a prisoner's correspondence.

• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND

  The Court would recall that in its judgment in the case of Bista v. Poland and other rulings that followed, it held that applicants with complaints based on similar interferences with detainees" correspondence which - as in the applicant's case - occurred after 28 June 2007 were, in order to comply with Article 35 § 1, required to avail themselves of an action for the infringement of personal rights under Article 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code (see Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, 12 January 2010, § 49).
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI ET 57 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  [22] Pasternak, Friedensberg and Bista, Application No. 22807/07, judgment of 12/01/2010.
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25792/94

  TRZASKA AND 172 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  22807/07.
• 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, 01.02.2011 - 19218/07

  [ENG]

  The Court has held that applicants with similar complaints based on interferences which occurred after 28 June 2007 are required to avail themselves of the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code, failing which they will be considered to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, § 49, 12 January 2010).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 26451/07

  [ENG]

  The Court recalls that in the case of Bista v. Poland (no. 22807/07, 12 January 2010, §§ 44-49) it was established, having regard to the relevant developments in the domestic practice, that in respect of the alleged infringements of the secrecy of a prisoner's correspondence which took place after 28 June 2007, the applicants were required to have recourse to a civil action under Articles 23 and 24 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code.
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 10274/08

  [ENG]

  As to the applicant's complaint about the censorship of his correspondence the Court has held that applicants with similar complaints based on interferences which occurred after 28 June 2007 are required to avail themselves of the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code, failing which they will be considered to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, § 49, 12 January 2010).
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 6200/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 44025/08

  FRIEDENSBERG v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  CHYLA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 14322/12

  MILKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 13384/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 2627/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34907/05

  HINCZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.12.2020 - 34461/16

  JUSIAK v. POLAND