Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELIWIAK v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3c, Art. 6 Abs. 3c MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3c Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Given that the requirements of paragraph 3 (c) represent specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, the Court will examine the applicant's complaints in the light of the two texts taken in combination (see, among many other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp.

  Nonetheless, the personal attendance of the defendant does not take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for a trial hearing (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).

• VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 14.05.2002 - 11/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  In its decisions of 13 March and 17 September 2002 the Supreme Court expressed the view that when a legal-aid lawyer refused to represent a convicted person before the Supreme Court, the appellate court was not obliged to assign a new lawyer to the case (II KZ 11/02, II KZ 36/02).

  The Supreme Court reiterated its position in a number of other decisions (e.g. II KZ 11/02, II KZ 36/02).

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  The latter means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (see, among other authorities, Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66 and 67, Series A no. 211).

• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  The Court notes that the applicant does not complain about the lawyer's refusal to file a cassation appeal and the impact which this had on his right of access to the Supreme Court (compare Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00 and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6, despite the fact that the appellant is not given the opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that a public hearing is held at first instance (see, among other authorities, Monnell and Morris, cited above, p. 22, § 58, as regards the issue of leave to appeal, and Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, § 30, as regards the court of cassation).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that in the context of criminal proceedings it is essentially the responsibility of the courts to ensure that a trial is fair (Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 34, Series A no. 297-A).
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

  KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantee of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 200l, and Hermi, Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

  IÇYER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  The rule is based on the assumption that the domestic system provides an effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach (see, among many other authorities, Ä°çyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, 12 January 2006).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Even where the court of appeal has jurisdiction to review the case both as to the facts and the law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, p. 68, § 31).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.07.2004 - 50545/99

  DONDARINI c. SAINT-MARIN
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95
• BAG, 24.03.1998 - 9 AZR 41/97

  Haftung des Komplementärs für Betriebsrenten nach Erlöschen der KG

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 19847/07

  SOBOLEWSKI AND 2 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  Application No. 3818/04, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009).

  Seliwiak, application No. 3818/04, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009.

  Seliwiak, application no. 3818/04, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.07.2017 - C-270/17

  Tupikas - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Europäischer Haftbefehl - Gründe, aus …

  EGMR, 18. Oktober 2006, Hermi/Italien, CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD001811402, § 62; 21. Juli 2009, Seliwiak/Polen, CE:ECHR:2009:0721JUD000381804, §§ 54 bis 64; 9. Juni 2009, Sobolewski/Polen, CE:ECHR:2009:0609JUD001984707, §§ 33 bis 44; 9. Juni 2009, Strzalkowski/Polen, CE:ECHR:2009:0609JUD003150902, §§ 39 bis 55; 21. September 1993, Kremzow/Österreich, CE:ECHR:1993:0921JUD001235086, § 67; 26. Juli 2002, Meftah/Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2002:0726JUD003291196, § 41; 25. April 2013, Zahirović/Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2013:0425JUD005859011, §§ 54 bis 57.
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07

  PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY

  In cases falling under the criminal head of Article 6 § 1, the Court's case-law does not necessarily require a further oral hearing on appeal (see Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 56, 21 July 2009, and Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, § 36, 23 April 2009).

• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 42937/08

  JANYR c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  La Cour relève en outre que le requérant n'est à aucun moment resté sans représentant devant les juridictions tchèques, qu'il a été au courant de la désignation de Me F. et de ses coordonnées (voir, a contrario, Seliwiak c. Pologne, no 3818/04, § 60, 21 juillet 2009) et qu'il n'a pas refusé ses services (voir a contrario, Sakhnovski c. Russie [GC], no 21272/03, § 91, 2 novembre 2010).
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 42684/06

  UMNIKOV v. UKRAINE

  Nevertheless, the Court has held that where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by an accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see Ekbatani, cited above, § 32; Dondarini v. San Marino, § 27, 6 July 2004; Marcello Viola v. Italy, § 58, 5 October 2006; Popovici v. Moldova, nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, § 68, 27 November 2007; and Selwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, §§ 55-57, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  DELIKTAS v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objection (compare Boz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 7906/05, 9 December 2008, and Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 46, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 35916/08

  [ENG]

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant should not have been required to embark on further attempts to obtain legal assistance with a view to lodging a cassation appeal for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 47, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 18063/07

  [ENG]

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant should not therefore have been required to have recourse to a privately hired lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 47, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 72520/17

  TOBIJA?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  Rn. 20 The general principles concerning personal attendance of the defendant before the appeal courts have been summarised in Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, §§ 30-33, 25 February 2021, and Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, §§ 54-59, 21 July 2009.
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10

  [ENG]

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant should not therefore have been required to embark on further attempts to obtain legal assistance with a view to lodging a cassation appeal for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 47, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 17656/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 40459/05

  [ENG]