Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BACHOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BACHOWSKI c. POLOGNE [Extraits]

  Inadmissible (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 5249/06

  ZHURAVLEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 32463/06

  Il s'ensuit que le grief de l'intéressé est compatible ratione temporis avec les dispositions de la Convention au sens de l'article 35 § 3 (voir Jouravlev c. Russie, no 5249/06, § 17, 15 janvier 2009, et, a contrario, Matveïev c. Russie, no 26601/02, § 38, 3 juillet 2008).

• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

  VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In addition, in many cases the former Commission and the Court have reviewed various aspects of permission-to-appeal or similar proceedings under that provision (see Webb v. the United Kingdom, no. 33186/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. and A.G.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45619/99, 29 February 2000; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002; Stepinska v. France, no. 1814/02, §§ 15-19, 15 June 2004; Guz v. Poland (dec.), no. 29293/02, 19 May 2005; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2006-VI; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007; Mrúz v. Hungary, no. 3261/05, § 20, 14 October 2008; Lajos Németh v. Hungary, no. 3840/05, § 20, 21 October 2008; Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 199, 7 July 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-25, 19 January 2010; Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62793/10, §§ 27-40, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 30733/08

  HÜLYA EBRU DEMIREL v. TURKEY

  In examining this issue, the Court must bear in mind that where a high court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Nerva v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); and, Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 16101/18

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  The Court refers to its general principles concerning the application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 as set out and put in practice in its case-law (see, inter alia, Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, §§ 49 -52, ECHR 2012 and Matveyev v. Russia, no. 26601/02, §§ 39-45, 3 July 2008; as well as Soyupova v. Russia, (dec.), no. 37957/15, 19 April 2016; Bachowski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; Jeronovics v. Latvia, (dec.), no. 547/02, § 77, 10 February 2009, and Georgiou v. Greece, (dec.), no. 45138/98).