Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRABINSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 43702/02
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 43702/02

Wird zitiert von ... (33)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 43702/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, §§ 68-70, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 51837/99

  BELLER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 43702/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, §§ 68-70, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99

  KOSS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 43702/02

  The Court recalls that it has already determined that Article 6 § 1 is applicable to proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land (cf. Potocka and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 33776/96, 6 April 2000; Szenk v. Poland (dec.), no. 67979/01, 1 June 2004; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, § 29, 28 March 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 41753/09

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, are set out at length in the cases of Grabinski v. Poland no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006, Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 21-25, 28 March 2006, and Kaniewski v. Poland no. 8049/02, §§ 22-28, 8 November 2005.

  Furthermore, the Court has held in a number of cases against Poland that in order to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the context of lengthy administrative proceedings it was necessary to have recourse first to a hierarchical complaint about inactivity of an administrative authority and, if this proved unsuccessful, to a subsequent complaint to the administrative court (Zynger (dec.), no. 66096/01, 7 May 2002; Futro v. Poland (dec.), no. 51832/99, 3 June 2003; Marcinkowscy v. Poland (dec.), no. 39262/98, 13 November 2003; Mazurek v. Poland (dec.), no. 57464/00, 7 September 2004; Kolodziej v. Poland (dec.), no. 47995/99, 18 October 2005; Szablinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 52462/99, 2 February 200; Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, 17 October 2006; Olszewska v. Poland, no. 13024/05, 18 December 2007; Oledzki v. Poland (dec.), no. 13715/03, 4 January 2008; Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, 1 July 2008; Paliga and Adamkowicz v. Poland, no. 23856/05, 4 April 2009; Serafin v. Poland, no. 36980/04, 21 April 2009; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006; Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, 1 February 2005; Karasinska v. Poland, no. 13771/02, 6 October 2009; Puchalska v. Poland, no. 10392/04, 6 October 2009; Derda v. Poland, no. 58154/08, § 44, 1 June 2010; Kuderewska and Kuderewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 48531/07, 9 February 2010; Darkowska and Darkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 31339/04, § 49, 15 November 2011);.

• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 48242/06

  GIZA v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law concerning inactivity on the part of administrative authorities is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, §§ 22-28, 8 February 2006; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 21-25, 28 March 2006; and Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006.

  The Court also notes that the examples of domestic case-law furnished by the Government do not constitute evidence of a judicial practice which was sufficiently established to make a claim for compensation based on Article 417¹ § 3 of the Civil Code an effective remedy and that the Government have thus failed to substantiate their contention (see Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, § 74, 17 October 2006).

• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 42797/06

  KOSINSKA v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, are described in the cases of Grabinski v. Poland no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006, Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 21-25, 28 March 2006, and Kaniewski v. Poland no. 8049/02, §§ 22-28, 8 November 2005.

  However, the judgment relied on by the Government was, at the time of its delivery, no more than an isolated example of jurisprudence, rather than a sufficiently established judicial practice and it cannot therefore be regarded as presenting a consolidated and well-established judicial practice (see Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006; Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, § 74, 17 October 2006; and Pióro and Lukasik v. Poland, no. 8362/02, § 35, 2 December 2008).

• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 15910/08

  MIKOLAJ PIOTROWSKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law concerning inactivity on the part of administrative authorities is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006.

  The Court also notes that the domestic case-law relied on by the Government does not constitute evidence of sufficiently established judicial practice to show that a claim for compensation based on Article 417¹ § 3 of the Civil Code was an effective remedy, and they have thus failed to substantiate their contention (see Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006; Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, § 74, 17 October 2006; and Pióro and Lukasik v. Poland, no. 8362/02, § 35, 2 December 2008).

• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 858/08

  RADOSZEWSKA-ZAKOSCIELNA v. POLAND

  The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 60-65 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 17 October 2006 in the case of Grabinski v. Poland (application no. 43702/02).

  The fact that in the present case the applicant's claim for the grant of perpetual use of land is still pending does not in itself render the combination of remedies available in administrative proceedings incompatible with Article 13 (see, Grabinski v. Poland (dec.) no. 43702/02, 18 October 2005).

• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 6669/03

  GIERMEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law concerning inactivity on the part of administrative authorities is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, §§ 22-28, 8 February 2006; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 21-25, 28 March 2006; and Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006).

  The Court also notes that the examples of domestic case-law furnished by the Government do not constitute evidence of a judicial practice which was sufficiently established to make a claim for compensation based on Article 417¹ § 3 of the Civil Code an effective remedy and that the Government have thus failed to substantiate their contention (see Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, § 74, 17 October 2006).

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 20982/07

  [ENG]

  33 The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 60-65 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 17 October 2006 in the case of Grabinski v. Poland (application no. 43702/02).

  The fact that in the present case the applicant's claim for the grant of perpetual use of land is still pending does not in itself render the combination of remedies available in administrative proceedings incompatible with Article 13 (see Grabinski v. Poland (dec.) no. 43702/02, 18 October 2005).

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 33744/06

  [ENG]

  The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 60-65 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 17 October 2006 in the case of Grabinski v. Poland (application no. 43702/02).

  The fact that in the present case the applicant's claim for the grant of perpetual use of land is still pending does not in itself render the combination of remedies available in administrative proceedings incompatible with Article 13 (see, Grabinski v. Poland (dec.) no. 43702/02, 18 October 2005).

• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 31339/04

  [ENG]

  With regard to their alleged failure to pursue civil actions, the Court recalls that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, § 74, 17 October 2006; Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006; Puczynski v. Poland, no. 32622/03, § 40, 8 December 2009; Derda, cited above, § 47 and Iskrzyccy v. Poland, no. 9261/02, § 55, 14 September 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings that those actions could not be considered effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 9834/08

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure and the 2002 Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, are described in the cases of Grabinski v. Poland no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 21-25, 28 March 2006; and Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 8049/02, §§ 22-28, 8 November 2005.
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 32622/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 53339/09

  SIERMINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 1415/11

  POTOCKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 7153/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 9261/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 21700/02

  POLANSCY v. POLAND
• EGMR - 48242/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 21700/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 47663/11

  KASPRZYKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 35965/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 24523/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30030/06

  FLORCZYK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 49242/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 32594/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 10392/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33429/07

  KORCZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 28604/03

  LORENC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 38166/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 22074/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 43939/07

  TARNOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 26764/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 11522/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 24706/05

  PABJAN v. POLAND