Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIELINSKI v. POLAND

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6 - Right to an effective remedy ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BIELI?ƒSKI v. POLAND and 22 other applications

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  CICHOPEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, §§ 68-72, 14 May 2013).

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, §§ 63-87, 14 May 2013.

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  The Court's assessment 69. As to the right of access to a court, the Court held as follows in Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 229-31, ECHR 2012:.

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  This "right to a court', of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his or her civil rights is unlawful and complains that no possibility was afforded to submit that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, inter alia, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X, and Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 132, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  This is particularly true for the guarantees enshrined in Article 6, in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial with all the guarantees under that Article (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII).".
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access "by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals' (see Ashingdane [v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985], § 57 [Series A no. 93]).
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81

  Deumeland ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  The Court reiterates that proceedings before a Constitutional Court are taken into consideration where, although the court has no jurisdiction to rule on the merits, its decision is capable of affecting the outcome of the dispute before the ordinary courts (see Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, § 77, Series A no. 100; Pammel v. Germany, 1 July 1997, §§ 51-57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; and Süßmann v. Germany, 16 September 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (ibid.; see also, among many other authorities, Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98 § 54, ECHR 2003-I, and the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  The Court has previously considered the 2004 Act under Article 35 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and concluded that it was "effective" for the purposes of those provisions (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-43, ECHR 2005-V).
• BVerfG, 23.06.2015 - 1 BvL 13/11

  Ersatzbemessungsgrundlage im Grunderwerbsteuerrecht verfassungswidrig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  14/11/2022.
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10

  RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 4/18 (anhängig)

  YÜKSEK c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 39282/22

  MANZITTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  When necessary, States are requested to increase resources in response to unreasonable delays and to take a range of legislative, organisational, budgetary and other measures (see Bieli?„ski v. Poland, no. 48762/19, § 44, 21 July 2022).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 13630/19

  VAN DEN KERKHOF c. BELGIQUE

  Elle rappelle également que, conformément à sa jurisprudence, le caractère raisonnable de la durée d'une procédure s'apprécie à la lumière des circonstances de l'affaire et selon les critères suivants: la complexité de l'affaire, le comportement du requérant, celui des autorités compétentes, et l'enjeu du litige pour l'intéressé (Comingersoll, précité, § 19, Paroisse gréco-catholique Lupeni et autres, précité, § 142, et Bielinski c. Pologne, no 48762/19, §§ 42-44, 21 juillet 2022).
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 28236/19

  CARRETO RIBEIRO v. PORTUGAL

  More specifically, on the question of excessive delay in civil proceedings, the Court has consistently held that, while an unreasonable delay in enforcing a binding judgment may be contrary to the Convention, the reasonableness of such a delay is to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard in particular to the applicant's own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, among other factors (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, ECHR 2000-IV; Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007; and Bielinski v. Poland, no. 48762/19, §§ 42-44, 21 July 2022).
• EGMR - 29761/22 (anhängig)

  SALA v. POLAND and 5 other applications

  15189/10 and 1, 627 others, 14 May 2013), Bielinski v. Poland (no. 48762/19, 21 July 2022) and Raboszuk v. Poland (no. 231/22 and 2 other applications, recently communicated).
• EGMR - 56285/22 (anhängig)

  SO?�TYS v. POLAND

  The present application is a follow-up case to the leading judgment Bieli?„ski v. Poland, no. 48762/19, 21 July 2022.