Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOWALCZYK v. POLAND

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kowalczyk v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  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, cited above; 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 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03

  KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  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 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

  ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  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 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  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 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38155/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  In particular, the Court has held that once a solution has been adopted by a State to regulate the collective dismissal of hundreds of persons from State-owned companies, it must be implemented with reasonable clarity and coherence in order to avoid, in so far as possible, uncertainty and ambiguity for the persons concerned by the measures of implementation (see Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 32, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42162/02

  SCHWARZKOPF ET TAUSSIK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the domestic courts had acknowledged the existence of the difficulties arising in connection with the interpretation of the statute applied in the applicant's case and took necessary and sufficient measures to address these difficulties (see Schwarzkopf and Taussik v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42162/02, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 648/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  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 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

  SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  34043/05 and 15792/06, 21 June 2011.
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

  ARCINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  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 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  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 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 21911/03

  TUDOR TUDOR v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07

  MULLAI ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ALBANIE
• 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 …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 1562/10

  [ENG]

  24428/03 and 26977/03, §§ 33-36, 27 January 2009; Schwarzkopf and Taussik, cited above, 2 December 2008; Tudor Tudor, cited above, § 31; Stefanica and Others, cited above, § 36; and Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland, no. 23987/05, § 43, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34736/06

  [ENG]

  34043/05 and 15792/06, 21 June 2011; Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland no. 23987/05, 11 October 2011; Dombrowski v. Poland, no. 9566/10, 18 October 2011.
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 26860/11

  KRASNODEBSKA-KAZIKOWSKA AND LUNIEWSKA v. POLAND

  In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the domestic courts not only acknowledged the existence of the difficulties arising in connection with the interpretation of the statute applied in the applicants' case, but also took necessary and sufficient measures to address these difficulties by resorting to a specific mechanism designated to harmonise judicial practice (see Schwarzkopf and Taussik v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42162/02, 2 December 2008; Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland, no. 23987/05, §§ 46-48, 11 October 2011; Remuszko v. Poland, no. 1562/10, §§ 92-99, 16 July 2013, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 88-95, 20 October 2011, all mutatis mutandis).

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10

  [ENG]

  34043/05 and 15792/06, 21 June 2011 and Kowalczyk Teresa v. Poland, no. 23987/05, 11 October 2011.
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09

  INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND

  The Court is of the view that, in order for the legal framework regulating the lodging of cassation appeals to be compatible with the Convention standards, the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court summarised above should also be applicable to situations where after a legal-aid lawyer's refusal to prepare a cassation appeal the party wishes to have recourse to the services of another lawyer (see Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland, no. 23987/05, § 39, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 24250/11

  PIOTR KOZLOWSKI v. POLAND

  The Court recalls that in Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland, no. 23987/05, 11 October 2011, it found no violation when the applicant still had nine days within which to avail herself of the possibility of seeking leave to appeal out of time (in effect seven working days if Saturday and Sunday are discounted).