Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 13.09.2011

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,64531
EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,64531)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,64531)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. September 2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,64531)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,64531) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KULIKOWSKI AND 12 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (23)

  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

    SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

    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 Septembre 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011.

  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06

    SUBICKA v. POLAND

    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 and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.

  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

    [ENG]

    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, 27.03.2012 - 7272/09

    NOWASZEWSKI v. POLAND

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22.

    Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in the area of effective access to the Supreme Court in the context of criminal proceedings (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

  • EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 22183/06

    [ENG]

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals in criminal cases with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009.

    Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in the area of effective access to the Supreme Court in the context of criminal proceedings (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

  • EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07

    [ENG]

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).

    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, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).

  • EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05

    [ENG]

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).

    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, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04

    [ENG]

    [1] Kulikowski v. Poland, n° 18353/03, 19 May 2009 and Antonicelli v. Poland, n° 2815/05, 19 May, 2009.
  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08

    [ENG]

    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 (see Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts), and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 37364/05

    JEMELJANOVS v. LATVIA

    In the absence of any indications of negligence or arbitrariness on the lawyers' part in relation to discharging their duties, the State had complied with its obligations to provide the applicant with effective legal aid (see Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 68, 19 May 2009).
  • EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 34118/11

    ORDRE DES AVOCATS DEFENSEURS ET AVOCATS PRES LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONACO c. MONACO

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 56334/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 20520/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34851/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 45213/07

    CHOROBIK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 57944/08

    KEDRA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09

    INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 19554/03

    SIENKIEWICZ v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56299
EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56299)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.09.2011 - 30358/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56299)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. September 2011 - 30358/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56299)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56299) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    More recent developments are described in the Court's decision in the cases of Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 17-49).

    (see Latak v. Poland no. 52070/08 and Lominski v. Poland no. 33502/09 (dec.), 12 October 2010, §§ 71-85 and §§ 62-76 respectively).

  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    More recent developments are described in the Court's decision in the cases of Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 17-49).

    (see Latak v. Poland no. 52070/08 and Lominski v. Poland no. 33502/09 (dec.), 12 October 2010, §§ 71-85 and §§ 62-76 respectively).

  • EGMR, 18.12.2001 - 29692/96

    R.D. v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    However, the Court must satisfy itself that the method chosen by the domestic authorities in a particular case is compatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, in criminal law proceedings, R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001; Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 58 and 59 ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 33 and 34, 19 May 2009 and, in civil law proceedings, Tabor v. Poland, no. 12825/02, §§ 39-43, 27 June 2006).

    The Court notes at the outset that the facts of the instant application are similar to those in the case of R.D. v. Poland (see R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, 18 December 2001), in which a violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention was found by the Court.

  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    The Court emphasises the importance of the right of access to a court, having regard to the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12-13, § 24).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

    Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 57; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII, mutatis mutandis).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 57; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII, mutatis mutandis).
  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    A restrictive interpretation of that right would not be consonant with the object and purpose of this provision (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, § 30).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96

    MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    Given the special nature of the court of cassation's role, which is limited to reviewing whether the law has been correctly applied, the Court is able to accept that the procedure followed in such courts may be more formal (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    13/12/2011.
  • EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87
    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
    The first is lack of "sufficient means to pay for legal assistance", the second is that "the interests of justice" must require that such assistance be given free (see, among many other authorities, the Pham Hoang v. France judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243 p. 23, § 39).
  • EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04

    ORCHOWSKI AND 6 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97

    ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

    ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 12825/02

    TABOR v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03

    KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    30358/04.

    Wersel, application No. 30358/04, judgment of 13/09/2011, final on 13/12/2011.

    Wersel, application No. 30358/04, judgment of 13/09/2011, final on 13/12/2011.

  • EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

    ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications

    However, in cases where unsatisfactory conditions of detention have already ended, the use of a compensatory remedy, such as civil action for damages, is normally an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention (see, amongst many others, Łomiński v. Poland no. 33502/09 (dec.), §§ 70-73 12 October 2010, and Wersel v. Poland, no. 30358/04, §§ 33-36, 13 September 2011; see also Nikitin and Others v. Estonia, nos.
  • EGMR, 09.07.2020 - 69143/12

    RECHUL c. POLOGNE

    Another important feature of the case at hand is that within the same time frame, another civil court (see the second set of the proceedings in question) had acknowledged the applicant's indigenous status and had granted him a full exemption from court fees (see paragraph 8 above; compare mutatis mutandis with Wersel v. Poland, no. 30358/04, § 46, 13 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 43316/08

    [ENG]

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning legal representation in cassation appeal criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court are stated in the Court's judgment in the case of Wersel v. Poland, no. 30358/04, §§ 26-29, 13 September 2011.
  • EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 33038/08

    NOWACKI v. POLAND

    The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 26-29 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 13 September 2011 in the case of Wersel v. Poland (no. 30358/04, 13 September 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht