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 |
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
- EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 18353/03
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18353/03
- 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
Wird zitiert von ... (14)
- 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
KOWALCZYK 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, 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)
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, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05
SLOWIK 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, 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, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07
WRZESINSKI 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, 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, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08
SIWIEC 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 (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, 21.05.2013 - 34118/11
ORDRE DES AVOCATS DEFENSEURS ET AVOCATS PRES LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONACO c. MONACO
Sa poursuite d'un but d'intérêt général, combiné avec la spécificité de la profession d'avocat relevée par la Cour dans sa jurisprudence, justifie qu'il ait qualité à agir contre les ingérences arbitraires des pouvoirs publics (cf. notamment André et autres c. France, précité, Kulikowski c. Pologne, no 18353/03, 19 mai 2009, Steur c. Pays-Bas, no 39657/98, CEDH 2003-XI, Nikula c. Finlande, no 31611/96, CEDH 2002-II, Kyprianou c. Chypre [GC], no 73797/01, CEDH 2005-XIII, et Gillberg c. Suède, no 41723/06, 2 novembre 2010). - EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05
TOMCZYKOWSKI 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). - EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 56334/08
JEDRZEJCZAK 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). - EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 20520/08
KOCUREK 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). - EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34851/07
KRAMARZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 45213/07
CHOROBIK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09
INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 57944/08
KEDRA v. POLAND
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Wersel v. Poland
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- 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, 27.06.2006 - 12825/02
TABOR 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). - EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05
ANTONICELLI 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).
- 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, 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). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
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, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87
PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE
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, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97
ADOUD ET BOSONI c. 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). - EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
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, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
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).