Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRZYSZTOFIAK v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland, no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V, and Ratajczyk v. Poland, no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII, and in its the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

  The Court has already examined the remedies provided under section 5 of the 2004 Act for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and found them effective in respect of complaints concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-43, and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 37-44).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 7883/07

  FIGAS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  The Government referred to the arguments submitted previously in the case of Figas v. Poland (no. 7883/07, §§ 41-44, 23 June 2009).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  The Court reiterates that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial", as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  The Court has already examined the remedies provided under section 5 of the 2004 Act for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and found them effective in respect of complaints concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-43, and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 37-44).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention on remand (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland (no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006) and Celejewski v. Poland (no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 18036/03

  CICHLA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  Furthermore, the Court has also held that, having exhausted the available remedy provided by the 2004 Act, an applicant was not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a civil action for compensation (see Cichla v. Poland, no. 18036/03, § 26, 10 October 2006, and Jagiello v. Poland, no. 59738/00, § 24, 23 January 2007).
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 30848/03

  BRONK c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  It follows from the Court's case-law that the applicant is not required to appeal against each and every decision extending his detention (see, by contrast, Bronk v. Poland (dec.), no. 30848/03, 11 September 2007).
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 47944/06

  TOMECKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  The Court further notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected in previous cases against Poland (see Tomecki v. Poland, no. 47944/06, §§ 19-21, 20 May 2008, and Buta v. Poland, no. 18368/02, §§ 25-27, 28 November 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
• EGMR, 23.01.2007 - 59738/00

  JAGIELLO v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 38018/07

  Furthermore, the Court has also held that, having exhausted the available remedy provided by the 2004 Act, an applicant was not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a civil action for compensation (see Cichla v. Poland, no. 18036/03, § 26, 10 October 2006, and Jagiello v. Poland, no. 59738/00, § 24, 23 January 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25792/94

  TRZASKA AND 172 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  38018/07.
• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 43924/12

  ZIELINSKI v. POLAND

  Nevertheless, in the absence of any other factor capable of showing that the risk of his attempting to tamper with the proceedings actually existed, the Court cannot accept that ground as a justification for holding the applicant in custody for the entire period in question (see Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, § 48, 20 April 2010).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 968/05

  KRAINSKI v. POLAND

  In view of the facts that the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 15 December 2004 when the investigation in his case was still pending and that the Court had not ruled on the admissibility of this application, the transitional provision of section 2 of the 2009 Amendment was applicable to the applicant's situation and should have been used by him (see Gal v. Poland no 43485/07 (dec.), 6 September 2011; Pardus v. Poland, no. 13401/03, §§ 27-29, 15 June 2010 and a contrario, Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, § 60, 20 April 2010).

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 7708/12

  TOMCZYK v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings and investigation, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 23-30, 20 April 2010.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 7589/12

  BRAJER v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 23-30, 20 April 2010.
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 26451/07

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are presented in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgment s in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 23-31, 20 April 2010.
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 35110/10

  [ENG]

  A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are presented in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V, and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V, and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 22-31, 20 April 2010.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 9635/12

  KUROWSKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings and investigation, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§-23-30, 20 April 2010.
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 44034/11

  KACKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 23-30, 20 April 2010.
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16853/10

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland, no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V, and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII, and in its the judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 2331, 20 April 2010.
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 14926/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 32563/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 28237/10

  PAWLAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 2210/10

  RYSIEW v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 15991/08

  NIKOLSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 9523/10

  FABISIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 29345/09

  WRONA v. POLAND