Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 30210/96, 27916/95, 49975/99, 64974/01, 72999/01, 71151/01, 5413/02, 34220/96, 47627/99, 72994/01, 71152/01, 53413/99, 38328/97, 52040/99, 13282/04, 39597/98, 4922/02, 60299/00, 21340/04, 43316/98, 38665/97, 49035/99, 27918/95, 71893/01, 17484/02, 20838/0 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KUDLA ET 204 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises pour l'exécution de l'engagement auquel a été subordonnée la solution de l'affaire (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KUDLA AND 204 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
Information given by the government concerning measures taken for the execution of the undertakings attached to the solution of the case (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 20.04.1998 - 30210/96
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
- EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 30210/96, 27916/95, 49975/99, 64974/01, 72999/01, 71151/01, 5413/02, 34220/96, 47627/99, 72994/01, 71152/01, 53413/99, 38328/97, 52040/99, 13282/04, 39597/98, 4922/02, 60299/00, 21340/04, 43316/98, 38665/97, 49035/99, 27918/95, 71893/01, 17484/02, 20838/0
Wird zitiert von ... (42)
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03
WESOLOWSKA v. POLAND
It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at the relevant time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for excessive length of proceedings or that such action offered reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003, Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003, and for administrative proceedings Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006).
- EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 13146/02
RAFINSKA v. POLAND
For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, i.e. the 2004 Act, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
- EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 66079/01
BOCZON v. POLAND
For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland, (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 22346/02
WROBLEWSKA v. POLAND
For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, i.e. the 2004 Act, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 56026/00
WENDE AND KUKOWKA v. POLAND
[1] For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35. - EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 24827/14
FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
La Cour rappelle d'emblée que les exigences de l'article 6 § 1 sont plus strictes que celles de l'article 13 (Kud?‚a c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 146, CEDH 2000 XI) et constate que le grief de la société requérante tiré de l'article 13 se trouve absorbé par son grief tiré de l'article 6 § 1. - EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 44408/18
M.M. c. GRÈCE
Les principes généraux découlant de la jurisprudence de la Cour relative à la détention des personnes malades ont été présentés dans les arrêts Kud?‚a c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 90-94, CEDH 2000-XI et Blokhin c. Russie [GC], no 47152/06, §§ 135-140, 23 mars 2016. - EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 45435/99
RADOS AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
The Court reiterates that in order to determine the reasonableness of the length of time in question, regard must be had, however, to the state of the case on 5 November 1997 (see, among other authorities, Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII). - EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 49255/22
CAMARA c. BELGIQUE
La Cour rappelle que les exigences de l'article 6 § 1, qui impliquent l'ensemble des garanties propres aux procédures judiciaires, sont en principe plus strictes que celles de l'article 13, et sont absorbées par elles (Kud?‚a c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 146, CEDH 2000-XI). - EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 38872/03
BOGDANOWICZ v. POLAND
[1] For a more detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005. - EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 24720/13
HIRTU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 47119/99
SHACOLAS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 47210/19
ERCAN c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 10317/03
ÜMIT ISIK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 63412/00
SAHINI v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 42096/98
SKAWINSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.06.2002 - 48771/99
DELIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 47863/99
SOC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 20.12.2001 - 52634/99
FUTTERER v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54727/00
CERIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 46117/07
BIENIEK c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 9870/07
POGHOSSIAN c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 25668/03
ADAM SIENKIEWICZ c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 04.03.2004 - 73564/01
MUZENJAK v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 47863/99
SOC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2001 - 53227/99
MAJSTOROVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 49706/99
RAJAK v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 43387/20
ÇIFTÇI c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 19961/05
KUSNIERCZAK c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 09.09.2008 - 3987/04
BURBULIS c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 20797/06
ARVANITI c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 45982/06
ANDRZEJCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 57764/00
RYBCZYNSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 12174/02
NOWAK AND ZAJACZKOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 73802/01
GAVRIELIDOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 26.02.2004 - 71549/01
CVIJETIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 67399/01
DJURICIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 56773/00
RAJCEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 35382/06
SADURA c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 04.03.2004 - 75139/01
PIBERNIK v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 58115/00
CULJAK AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 15110/05
ENE c. ROUMANIE
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 38665/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BUKOWSKI v. POLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 38665/97
- EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 38665/97
- EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 38665/97
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 38665/97
The Court will assess the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; and Humen v. Poland cited above, § 60). - EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95
Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 38665/97
The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 124, to be published in ECHR 2002-...).
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99
KOSS v. POLAND
The Court recalls that, in the context of Article 13 and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, it has already held that such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, in order to be "effective" must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that had already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, Bukowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38665/97, 11 June 2002, unreported). - EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 41265/05
MAZUREK v. POLAND
It has already repeatedly found that the administrative law remedies available under Polish law were effective in cases in which an applicant complains of excessive length of administrative proceedings (see, Zynger v. Poland (dec.), no. 66096/01, 7 May 2002, and Bukowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38665/97, 11 June 2002).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 38665/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BUKOWSKI v. POLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 38665/97
- EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 38665/97
- EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 38665/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 38665/97
The Court recalls that, in the context of Article 13 and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, it has already held that such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, in order to be "effective" must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that had already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq. ECHR 2000-X).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 38665/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BUKOWSKI v. POLAND
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 38665/97
- EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 38665/97
- EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 38665/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84
ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 38665/97
The Court, noting that the proceedings complained of related to the determination of the applicant's right to build on his land, finds that these proceedings are of a "civil nature" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, the Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, pp.20-21, §§ 72-73; the Skärby v. Sweden judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 180-B, pp. - EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 38665/97
In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court, or any other domestic authority, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45; the Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, to be published in Reports 1999, § 28).