Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SALAPA v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 35489/97
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 35489/97
• EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

  It has considered that such proceedings fell short of these requirements and, consequently, found a violation of that provision (see Niedbała v. Poland judgment referred to above; Kawka v. Poland, no. 25874/94, §§ 53-61, 9 January 2001; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, §§ 70-79,11 July 2000; Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 125-136, 9 October 2000).
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

  The Court recalls that in its judgment in the case of Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000, unreported) it has already examined whether under Polish legislation in force at the relevant time a prosecutor could be regarded as an officer exercising "judicial power" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 and offering guarantees against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty.
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 29537/95

  RADAJ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

  The Court recalls similar cases, concerning the correspondence of detained persons, in which it found that Polish law as it stood at the material time, did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the discretion conferred on the public authorities in respect of control of prisoners' correspondence (Niedbała v. Poland judgment, referred to above; Radaj v. Poland, nos. 29537/95 and 35453/97, 28 November 2002).

• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  TRZASKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

  It has considered that such proceedings fell short of these requirements and, consequently, found a violation of that provision (see Niedbała v. Poland judgment referred to above; Kawka v. Poland, no. 25874/94, §§ 53-61, 9 January 2001; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, §§ 70-79,11 July 2000; Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 125-136, 9 October 2000).
• EGMR, 09.01.2001 - 25874/94

  KAWKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

  It has considered that such proceedings fell short of these requirements and, consequently, found a violation of that provision (see Niedbała v. Poland judgment referred to above; Kawka v. Poland, no. 25874/94, §§ 53-61, 9 January 2001; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, §§ 70-79,11 July 2000; Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 125-136, 9 October 2000).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 39920/98

  DI GIOVINE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

  Domestic law must indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities so as to ensure to individuals the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (the, among other authorities, Domenichini v. Italy, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1800, § 33; Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36; Di Giovine v. Italy, no. 39920/98, 26.7.2001, § 24).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  GALLIANI v. ROMANIA

  Furthermore, in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage, which could have been sustained by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 87-89, 29 January 2008; Zeciri v. Italy, no. 55764/00, § 56, 4 August 2005; Salapa v. Poland, no. 35489/97, § 107, 19 December 2002; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 76, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  WEDLER v. POLAND

  Consequently, the Court considers that the alleged non-pecuniary damage is adequately compensated by the finding of a violation of this provision (Salapa v. Poland, no. 35489/97, § 157, 19 December 2002).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 39510/98

  A.S. v. POLAND

  The Court agrees with the Government that the case was complex and the domestic courts dealt with it with sufficient consciousness (cf. Sałapa v. Poland concerning the same set of proceedings, no. 35489/97, §§ 84-87, 19 December 2002).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SALAPA v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 35489/97
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 35489/97
• EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97