Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (49) Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09
States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see, Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey [GC], (dec.) no. 46113/99, ECHR 2010-..., § 69; and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports 1996-IV). - EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 50003/99
WOLKENBERG AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09
In consequence of the above conclusions under Article 46 of the Convention in respect of the nature of the violation of Article 3 found in the pilot case and the general measures to be taken by the Polish State in order to solve the systemic problem identified by the Court, including redress for past violations (ibid. § 152 and § 157 respectively) and in accordance with the pilot-judgment procedure as applied by the Court, the ruling in the present case will necessarily extend beyond the sole interest of the individual applicant concerned and will be valid for all subsequent similar cases (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (merits)[GC], no. 35014/97, ECHR 2006-VIII, § 238; and Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.) no. 50003/99, 4 December 2007. - EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09
NAGOVITSYN AND NALGIYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09
Among such exceptions there certainly are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court has found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State makes available a remedy to redress at domestic level grievances of similarly situated persons (see Demopoulos and Others §§ 87-88; Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 191-193, ECHR 2004-V; and Nagovitsyn v. Russia no. 27451/09 and Nalgiyev v. Russia (no. 60650/09) (dec.), 23 September 2010, §§ 25-26 and 33-44).
- EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09
Having regard to the decision to examine the case simultaneously with the case of Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08), pursuant to Rule 42 § 2 of the Rules of Court,. - EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04
ORCHOWSKI AND 6 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09
Having regard to the final pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) delivered on 22 October 2009, in particular to the finding under Article 46 of the Convention that overcrowding in Polish prisons and remand centres revealed a structural problem,. - RG, 29.11.1907 - V 709/07
Zu den Tatbestandsmerkmalen der Verwertung eines Betriebsgeheimnisses im Sinne …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09
IACa 709/07, Szczecin Court of Appeal, of 10 January 2008; case brought by Norbert Sikorski (for details of the action and its outcome, see Norbert Sikorski, cited above, §§ 40-42);. - RG, 29.02.1908 - I 193/07
Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung. Aufrechnung gegen die Stammeinlage.
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09
IVCa 193/07, Slupsk Regional Court, of 15 June; case brought by L.W.
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
On 12 October 2010 the Court issued admissibility decisions in the cases of Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) in the framework of the pilot-judgment procedure. - EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11
HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA
First, in Iliev and Others (cited above, §§ 55-56 and 68) and Radkov (no. 2) (cited above, §§ 53 and 58) the Court held, by reference to two earlier decisions (see Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, §§ 77-85, 12 October 2010, and Lominski v. Poland (dec.), §§ 68-76, no. 33502/09, 12 October 2010), that a claim under section 1 of the 1988 Act (see paragraphs 136 and 137 above) - in as much as it could only result in an award of compensation and not lead to an improvement of the status quo - was, on its own, not a remedy capable of providing adequate redress to an applicant complaining under Article 3 of the Convention of conditions of detention which continued to obtain. - EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 23672/07
[ENG]
Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,.More recent developments are described in the Court's decision in the cases of Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) 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, 14.12.2010 - 5246/03
SIEDLECKI v. POLAND
Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,.(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, 13.09.2011 - 30358/04
[FRE]
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, 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, 14.12.2010 - 18199/06
SZYC v. POLAND
Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,.The Court already examined a similar objection on exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the Government in the above mentioned cases of Latak v. Poland and Lominski v. Poland and considered their arguments not only in the context of those two individual applications but also in respect of other actual or potential applicants with similar cases (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, 14.12.2010 - 10827/07
[ENG]
Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,.The Court already examined a similar objection based on exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the Government in the above-mentioned cases of Latak v. Poland and Lominski v. Poland and considered their arguments not only in the context of those two individual applications but also in respect of other actual or potential applicants with similar cases (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, 14.12.2010 - 20993/04
STEMPNIEWICZ v. POLAND
Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,.(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, 14.12.2010 - 222/05
PISARKIEWICZ v. POLAND
Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Lominski v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,.The Court has already examined a similar objection based on exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the Government in the above-mentioned cases of Latak v. Poland and Lominski v. Poland and considered their arguments not only in the context of those two individual applications but also in respect of other actual or potential applicants with similar cases (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 - 52070/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 40828/12
MIRONOVAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 31888/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 12927/13
DVORÁCEK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 6200/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 60439/12
ZIROVNICKÝ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 12739/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 18382/05
RADKOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 31975/15
DRANICERU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 71545/11
TODOROV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 37124/10
KOSTADINOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11932/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 12139/10
[FRE]
- EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 31434/15
TODOROV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 05.04.2012 - 8968/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08
CHYLA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22857/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
MIROSLAW ZIELINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 19170/15
GRZESKÓW v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 25626/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 32798/02
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 7784/04
TOMCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02
ILIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 5904/06
JEKOT v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 3826/04
ZDAN v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 37130/06
GONGOR v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 5346/06
DULEBA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 7441/05
GERTER v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 10874/05
SZUBSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 5882/05
STARUCH v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 7446/03
EWIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39877/03
SMIETANA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 38858/07
JOZEFOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44/07
KUZMICZ v. POLAND
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".