Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WNUK v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 18 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  However, the limitations applied cannot restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see, inter alia, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  Lastly, the Court observes that, as regards the preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of appeals on points of law, it has previously acknowledged that an appellate court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal on points of law as having no prospects of success, without further explanation (see Salé v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006, and Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 39765/04

  SALE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  Lastly, the Court observes that, as regards the preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of appeals on points of law, it has previously acknowledged that an appellate court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal on points of law as having no prospects of success, without further explanation (see Salé v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006, and Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  The Court does not exclude, that in the circumstances of a particular case a Supreme Court may be required to give more adequate reasons for its judgments (see Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 72, 10 August 2006; Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 50, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, § 96, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, § 115, 8 April 2008; Velted-98 AD v. Bulgaria, no. 15239/02, § 48, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  That is why the question whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article 6 § 1, can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, among many other authorities, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A; Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  Nevertheless, a State which does institute such courts is required to ensure that persons amenable to the law shall enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6" (Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 14, § 25).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  The Court does not exclude, that in the circumstances of a particular case a Supreme Court may be required to give more adequate reasons for its judgments (see Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 72, 10 August 2006; Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 50, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, § 96, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, § 115, 8 April 2008; Velted-98 AD v. Bulgaria, no. 15239/02, § 48, 11 December 2008).

• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 15319/09

  HANSEN v. NORWAY

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that "as regards the preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of appeals on points of law by an organ operating within the Court of Cassation, it has... acknowledged that an appellate court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal on points of law as having no prospects of success, without further explanation" (see, for instance, Gorou, cited above, § 41; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009, cited above, both with further references).

  Paragraph 80 also mentions Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009, which involved the Supreme Court as the third instance.

• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 18880/15

  PAPAIOANNOU c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle aussi sa jurisprudence selon laquelle l'article 6 n'exige pas que soit motivée en détail une décision par laquelle une juridiction de recours, se fondant sur une disposition légale spécifique, écarte un recours comme dépourvu de chance de succès (Gorou c. Grèce (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 29, 20 mars 2009 et Wnuk c. Pologne (déc.), no 38308/05, 1er septembre 2009).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).

 
• 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, 10.04.2012 - 11656/08

  BAR-BAU SP. Z O. O. c. POLOGNE

  Dans sa jurisprudence relative à la Pologne la Cour a considéré que le fait que la juridiction suprême ne réponde pas à tous les moyens de cassation adressés par un requérant dans son pourvoi n'était pas arbitraire (voir en particulier Mariola Wnuk c. Pologne, no 38308/05, déc. du 9 septembre 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  NERSESYAN v. ARMENIA

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme 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 of the Convention (see 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; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; 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, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 30733/08

  HÜLYA EBRU DEMIREL v. TURKEY

  More specifically, the Court has held that courts of cassation comply with their obligation to provide sufficient reasoning when they base themselves on a specific legal provision, without further reasoning, in dismissing cassation appeals which do not have any prospects of success (see Sale v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006, and Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 4763/02, ECHR 2003-II; for the same approach with regard to constitutional court practice see e.g. Wildgruber v. Germany, (dec.) no. 32817/02, 16 October 2006, and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; and mutatis mutandis, regarding the public prosecutor's decision rejecting a civil party's request to lodge an appeal on points of law Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009).
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Indeed, the Court has consistently ruled on various different occasions that, where a preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of an appeal on points of law is concerned, a domestic appellate court cannot be obliged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to give extensive reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal as having no prospects of success (see, for instance, Nersesyan, cited above, § 23 and 24; Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).