Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CZARNOWSKI v. POLAND

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28586/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28586/03

  The Court observes that any interference with an individual's right to respect for his private and family life will constitute a breach of Article 8, unless it was "in accordance with the law", pursued a legitimate aim or aims under paragraph 2, and was "necessary in a democratic society" in the sense that it was proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 45, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28586/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 26761/95

  PLOSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28586/03

  Its scrutiny is limited to consideration of the impugned measures in the context of the applicant's Convention rights, taking into account the margin of appreciation left to the Contracting States (see Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, § 38, 12 November 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  LESLAW WÓJCIK v. POLAND

  Therefore, the instant case has to be distinguished from the ones pertaining to supervised family visits under Article 217 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see, for example, Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, 19 January 2010) or to compassionate leaves responding to punctual requirements of family life, arising in specific circumstances (see Płoski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, § 38, 12 November 2002; Giszczak v. Poland, no. 40195/08, § 36, 29 November 2011; and Czarnowski v. Poland, no. 28586/03, § 26, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 37075/14

  BRAGADIREANU c. ROUMANIE

  Enfin, la Cour note que les autorités pénitentiaires n'ont nullement examiné la possibilité d'avoir recours à une escorte pour le transfert du requérant sur le lieu des obsèques (Ploski, précité, § 37, Czarnowski c. Pologne, no 28586/03, § 32, 20 janvier 2009, et Császy c. Hongrie, no 14447/11, § 19, 21 octobre 2014 ; voir également, a contrario, Sannino c. Italie (déc.), no 72639/01, 3 mai 2005).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 37830/16

  G.T. c. GRÈCE

  La Cour exerce toutefois sur la mesure en cause un contrôle à l'aune des droits garantis par la Convention, en tenant compte de la marge d'appréciation dont bénéficient les États contractants (voir Vetsev c. Bulgarie, no 54558/15, § 22, 2 mai 2019, Kanalas c. Roumanie, no 20323/14, § 66, 6 décembre 2016, Czarnowski c. Pologne, no 28586/03, § 26, 20 janvier 2009, et Płoski, précité, § 38).

• EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 54558/15

  VETSEV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour exerce néanmoins un contrôle sur la mesure en cause sous l'angle des droits garantis par la Convention, en tenant compte de la marge d'appréciation dont bénéficient les États contractants (Płoski, précité, § 38, Czarnowski c. Pologne, no 28586/03, § 26, 20 janvier 2009, et Kanalas c. Roumanie, no 20323/14, § 66, 6 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 20488/11

  KOSINSKI v. POLAND

  The Court observes that in the present case contrary to similar Polish cases (see Płoski, cited above, and Czarnowski v. Poland, no. 28586/03, 20 January 2009) the applicant was granted a compassionate leave to attend his grandmother's burial.
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 2900/11

  KUBIAK v. POLAND

  The Court therefore accepts that in the circumstances of the present case the risks associated with the applicant's release from prison could reasonably be considered high and the domestic authorities were justified in finding that his return to prison could not be guaranteed (cf. Ploski, cited above, § 36, and Czarnowski v. Poland, no. 28586/03, § 29, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 13384/10

  [ENG]

  The Court has established in a number of cases brought against Poland its practice concerning complaints about the violation of detainees" right to respect for private and family life on account of the refusal of compassionate leave from prison (see, for example, Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, §§ 32-39, 12 November 2002; Czarnowski v. Poland, no. 28586/03, §§ 25-33, 20 January 2009; Krym v. Poland (dec.), no. 26938/05, 7 October 2008; Wadielac v. Poland (dec.), no. 14260/09, 25 May 2010; Jurga v. Poland (dec.), no. 30540/09, 22 June 2010; and Giszczak v. Poland, no. 40195/08, §§ 36-41, 29 November 2011 (not yet final)).
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 31959/17

  HÂRTESCU ET ARCANA c. ROUMANIE

  Toutefois, ce jugement ne peut pas être considéré comme un recours effectif car il a été rendu très tard, plusieurs mois après les funérailles (voir, mutatis mutandis, Czarnowski c. Pologne, no 28586/03, §§ 20-21, 20 janvier 2009, et, dans un contexte différent, mais s'agissant d'un recours a posteriori, Alekseyev et autres c. Russie, nos 14988/09 et 50 autres, §§ 13-16, 27 novembre 2018 - concernant les conditions d'organisation et les modalités de tenue des rassemblements publics).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 18451/16

  STOLARCZYK v. POLAND

  With reference to the funeral of the applicant' grandmother the Court notes that, in the present case, contrary to similar Polish cases (see Płoski, cited above, and Czarnowski v. Poland, no. 28586/03, 20 January 2009), the applicant was granted compassionate leave to attend his grandmother's burial.
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 29037/15

  KARBOWNICZEK v. POLAND

  The Court therefore accepts that in the circumstances of the present case the risks associated with the applicant's release from prison could reasonably be considered high and the domestic authorities were justified in finding that his return to prison could not be guaranteed (see Czarnowski v. Poland, no. 28586/03, § 29, 20 January 2009, and Rostkowski v. Poland, (dec.) no. 58935/11, § 24, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 25842/17

  ÇILGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 60813/11

  RADYM v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 9409/09

  PIELAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 40950/12

  BANASZKOWSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59076/08

  A.C. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 58259/13

  JANISZEWSKI v. POLAND