Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZELCER v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38774/05

  More recent developments are described in the decision given by the Court in the case of Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54).

  They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Latak v. Poland (see Latak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64).

• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38774/05

  The legal provisions concerning exemption from court fees, applicable at the material time, and questions of practice are set out in the Court's judgments given in the cases Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001 VI, §§ 23-33) and Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland (no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01

  STANKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38774/05

  In the circumstances, the Court considers that the amount of court fees required from the applicant in the present case cannot be considered disproportionate (compare and contrast Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, §§ 43-67, 12 July 2007).
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04

  ORCHOWSKI AND 6 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38774/05

  A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that the conditions of their detention are inadequate are set out in the Court's pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively).
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 16828/02

  KUPIEC v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38774/05

  In this respect, the Court recalls that in the case Kupiec v. Poland it held that applicants who deliberately inflate the value of their claims for compensation cannot be expected to be exempted entirely from the payment of court fees or from the requirement to contribute in a reasonable amount to the costs of taking the action (see Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, § 47, 3 February 2009, and also Kuczera v. Poland, no. 275/02, § 45, 14 September 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.07.2020 - 69143/12

  RECHUL c. POLOGNE

  In view of the weight of the applicant's grievances and the duration of the alleged suffering, his compensation claim does not appear grossly exaggerated and unrealistic (contrast, Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011 and, mutatis mutandis, Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, §§ 6 and 47, 3 February 2009).

  Lastly, the Court notes that the refusal to waive the court fee occurred before the first-instance court and resulted in the applicant's action not being examined by a tribunal (compare, mutatis mutandis, with Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011).

• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 17271/21

  I.W. v. POLAND and 7 other applications

  Consequently, it does not discern sufficient grounds to accept that it was grossly exaggerated or unrealistic (compare Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011, and, mutatis mutandis, Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, § 47, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 33686/22
  Had he claimed a more reasonable amount, the court fees required would have been lower (see Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011, and Kupiec v. Poland, no. 16828/02, §§ 6 and 47, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 56293/15

  KOM, SPOLOCNOS?¤ S RUCENÍM OBMEDZENÝM v. SLOVAKIA

  Indeed, the courts did not refuse the exemption from the court fee at issue on the basis of the supposedly frivolous or manifestly ill-founded character of the claim (see, conversely, Zelcer v. Poland (dec.), no. 38774/05, 5 July 2011), within the meaning of Article 138 § 1 of the CCP (see paragraph 18 above).