Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAL v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 43485/07

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 4480/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 43485/07

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to leave a Contracting State (see, for example, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006; A. E. v. Poland, no. 4480/04, 31 March 2009; Ivanov v.Poland (dec.), no. 38204/02, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 38204/02

  IVANOV v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 43485/07

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to leave a Contracting State (see, for example, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006; A. E. v. Poland, no. 4480/04, 31 March 2009; Ivanov v.Poland (dec.), no. 38204/02, 23 October 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 11.12.2018 - 8938/04

  FARMUS v. POLAND

  Simultaneously, they declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 13000 (thirteen thousand euros) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court's case-law in similar cases (see, among others, Mierzejewski v. Poland, application no. 2916/13, judgment of 04.11.2014; Chojnacki v. Poland, application no. 62076/11, judgment of 20.07.2017 in respect of the breach of Article 5 5 3 of the Convention and Gał v. Poland, application no. 43485/07, decision of 06.09.2011; Kobiz v. Poland, application no. 13571/10, decision of 10.03.2015 in respect of the breach of Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 of the Convention).