Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOWAL v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOWAL v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  However, any such failure would not necessarily have to mean that there has been an abuse of the right to petition (see, for example, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, §§ 88-89, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38719/97

  D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002 and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002 and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05

  M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  The Court has acknowledged the particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection (see, mutatis mutandis, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 27, ECHR 2009; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 64-65, 12 June 2008; and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 44-45, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, §§ 55-61, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  A. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 67810/10

  GROSS v. SWITZERLAND

  Une information incomplète et donc trompeuse peut également s'analyser en un abus du droit de recours individuel, particulièrement lorsqu'elle concerne le cÅ“ur de l'affaire et que le requérant n'explique pas de façon suffisante pourquoi il n'a pas divulgué les informations pertinentes (Hüttner c. Allemagne (déc.), no 23130/04, 9 juin 2006, Predescu c. Roumanie, no 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 décembre 2008, et Kowal c. Pologne (déc.), no 2912/11, 18 septembre 2012).

  Lorsque cette responsabilité n'est pas assumée de manière adéquate, sans explication suffisante et que la nouvelle information en question concerne le cÅ“ur de l'affaire, alors je pense qu'un constat d'abus du droit de recours individuel doit inévitablement s'ensuivre (Hüttner c Allemagne (déc.), no 23130/04, 9 juin 2006 ; Predescu c. Roumanie, no 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 décembre 2008 ; et Kowal c. Pologne (déc.), no 2912/11, 18 septembre 2012).

• EGMR, 22.12.2015 - 28601/11

  G.S.B. c. SUISSE

  Une information incomplète et donc trompeuse peut s'analyser en un abus du droit de recours individuel, particulièrement lorsqu'elle concerne le cÅ“ur de l'affaire et que le requérant n'explique pas de façon suffisante pourquoi il n'a pas divulgué les informations pertinentes (Gross c. Suisse [GC], no 67810/10, § 28, CEDH 2014 ; Hüttner c. Allemagne (déc.), no 23130/04, 9 juin 2006 ; Predescu c. Roumanie, no 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 décembre 2008 ; et Kowal c. Pologne (déc.), no 2912/11, 18 septembre 2012).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12

  EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08

  A.L. v. POLAND

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 7549/09

  ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Bencheref v. Sweden (dec.), no. 9602/15, § 37, 5 December 2017; Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 19 June 2006; Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012; and Gross, cited above, § 28).
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 55517/14

  VILCHES CORONADO ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Une information incomplète et donc trompeuse peut également s'analyser en un abus du droit de recours individuel, particulièrement lorsqu'elle concerne le cÅ“ur de l'affaire et que le requérant n'explique pas de façon suffisante pourquoi il n'a pas divulgué les informations pertinentes (Hüttner c. Allemagne (déc.), no 23130/04, 9 juin 2006, Predescu c. Roumanie, no 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 décembre 2008, et Kowal c. Pologne (déc.), no 2912/11, 18 septembre 2012).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 66850/12

  OJCZYK v. POLAND

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 21371/10

  YAVUZ ÖZDEN c. TURQUIE

  Une information incomplète et donc trompeuse peut également s'analyser en un abus du droit de recours individuel, particulièrement lorsqu'elle concerne le c?“ur de l'affaire et que le requérant n'explique pas de façon suffisante pourquoi il n'a pas divulgué les informations pertinentes (Hüttner c. Allemagne (déc.), no 23130/04, 9 juin 2006, Predescu c. Roumanie, no 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 décembre 2008, et Kowal c. Pologne (déc.), no 2912/11, 18 septembre 2012).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 36363/18

  ARSLANBAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  BESTRY v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 24085/11

  DE VINCENZO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 81624/17

  POVILONIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 37857/14

  YUSUFELI ILÇESINI GÜZELLESTIRME YASATMA KÜLTÜR VARLIKLARINI KORUMA DERNEGI v. …
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 45340/18

  ÖZYÜREK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 16627/10

  MASLOTSOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 57699/13

  AKSENTIJEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 292/18

  TISKEVICIUS v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 30330/19

  SEKER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 11678/18

  BELYKH c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 19.11.2018 - 56729/12

  SHILOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 8967/14

  ABDURZAKOV ET TIMOFEYEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 03.11.2016 - 24902/11

  CABALLERO RAMIREZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 17544/07

  JAKOB'S CENTER D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  ANAMARIA-LOREDANA ORASANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA