Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lto.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 07.10.2019)

  Polens Rechtsstaatlichkeit auf dem Prüfstand

• Europarat (Pressemitteilung - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung)

  Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. ./. Polen

  Changes in the judiciary (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  XERO FLOR W POLSCE SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2022, 1229

Wird zitiert von ... (51)Zitiert selbst (62)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 19.04.1991 - 14324/88

  RUIZ-MATEOS ; AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  Firstly, the European Commission on Human Rights expressed the following view (Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, application no. 14324/88, Commission decision of 19 April 1991, DR 69, p. 227, emphasis added):.

  "The Court recalls that Article 6 of the Convention does not guarantee a right of access to a court with competence to invalidate or override a law (see Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, application no. 14324/88, Commission's report of 14 September 1991, DR 69 p. 227).".

  However, as Article 6 of the Convention does not guarantee a right of access to a court with competence to invalidate or override a law (see Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, no. 14324/88, Commission decision of 19 April 1991, Decisions and Reports 69, p. 227; and Szyszkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 33576/96, 9 December 1999), by a similar token it does not apply to proceedings in which litigants seek to invalidate primary or secondary legislation, because they are not directly decisive for their civil rights and obligations.

• OLG Hamm, 21.04.2016 - 1 VAs 100/15

  Auskunftsrecht einer Berufsgenossenschaft in Ermittlungsakten

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  I note that important questions connected with the election of judges to the Constitutional Court in 2015 have been examined by ordinary courts and administrative courts in several judgments (see for instance: Supreme Court, resolution of 17 March 2016, III CZP 102/15, Warsaw Administrative Court, judgment V SA/Wa 459/18, 20 June 2018; Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 11 September 2018, I FSK 158/18).

  However, under the Supreme Court's case law, in some exceptional circumstances - even ordinary courts may carry out constitutional review of primary legislation with inter partes effect (compare for instance the Supreme Court, resolution of 17 March 2016, III CZP 102/15).

• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  It must also satisfy a series of further requirements, such as "independence, in particular of the executive; impartiality; duration of its members' terms of office" (see, for example, Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 64, Series A no. 132).

  It must also satisfy a series of further requirements, such as "independence, in particular of the executive; impartiality; duration of its members' terms of office" (see, for example, Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 64, Series A no. 132).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and the cases cited therein).

  "Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and the cases cited therein).".

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  Thus, the question of whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article 6 of the Convention, can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A; Higgins and Others v. France, 19 February 1998, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I; and Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017).

  This view has been further confirmed in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 60, 11 July 2017.

• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  The same is true where the Constitutional Court examines an appeal lodged directly against a law, if the domestic legislation provides for such a remedy (see Hesse-Anger and Anger v. Germany (dec.), no. 45835/99, ECHR 2001-VI (extracts); mutatis mutandis, Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, 6 February 2003; and Voggenreiter v. Germany, no. 47169/99, § 33, ECHR 2004-I (extracts); see also Süßmann v. Germany, 16 September 1996, § 40, Reports 1996-IV).

  At the same time, the Court has declared Article 6 applicable to proceedings before the German Federal Constitutional Court, initiated by a constitutional complaint, even if their sole object was the constitutionality of legislation (Hesse-Anger and Anger v. Germany (dec.), no. 45835/99, ECHR 2001 VI (extracts), a case concerning solely the length of proceedings; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, 6 February 2003, concerning then right to a fair trial, with a cautious approach:.

• EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13942/88

  KRASKA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, proceedings can come within the scope of Article 6 § 1 even if they take place before a constitutional court (see Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, § 26, Series A no. 254-B; Pauger v. Austria, 28 May 1997, § 46, Reports 1997-III; Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 48, Reports 1997-VI; Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 36, 3 March 2000; Klein v. Germany, no. 33379/96, § 26, 27 July 2000; Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Tričković v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, §§ 36-41, 12 June 2001; and Soffer v. the Czech Republic, no. 31419/04, §§ 31-32, 8 November 2007).

  Secondly, under the Court's case law Article 6 applies if an individual contests individual judgments or decisions before a constitutional court (see for instance: Süßmann v. Germany, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, Series A no. 254-B; Pauger v. Austria, 28 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III; Gast and Popp v. Germany, no. 29357/95, ECHR 2000-II).

• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 459/18

  SABER v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  I note that important questions connected with the election of judges to the Constitutional Court in 2015 have been examined by ordinary courts and administrative courts in several judgments (see for instance: Supreme Court, resolution of 17 March 2016, III CZP 102/15, Warsaw Administrative Court, judgment V SA/Wa 459/18, 20 June 2018; Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 11 September 2018, I FSK 158/18).

  Secondly, the lawfulness of the election in question was also examined by some other Polish courts (see for instance Warsaw Administrative Court, judgment V SA/Wa 459/18, 20 June 2018).

• EGMR, 09.12.1999 - 33576/96

  SZYSKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  27702/95 28237/95 28355/95, 16 October 1996) and by the Court (Szyskiewicz v. Poland, (dec.), no. 33576/96, 9 December 1999, and Biziuk and Biziuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 12413/03, 12 December 2006).

  However, as Article 6 of the Convention does not guarantee a right of access to a court with competence to invalidate or override a law (see Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, no. 14324/88, Commission decision of 19 April 1991, Decisions and Reports 69, p. 227; and Szyszkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 33576/96, 9 December 1999), by a similar token it does not apply to proceedings in which litigants seek to invalidate primary or secondary legislation, because they are not directly decisive for their civil rights and obligations.

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  The Court has stated the directives of Convention interpretation inter alia in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 118-125, 8 November 2016, and summarized them recently in Slovenia v. Croatia, (dec.) [GC], no. 54155/16, § 60, 18 November 2020.
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3989/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.07.2000 - 33379/96

  Rechtssache K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 55385/14

  BAYDAR v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42994/05

  FURDIK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 55997/14

  DOS SANTOS CALADO c. PORTUGAL et 3 autres affaires
• EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 27793/95

  M.A. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 04.11.2003 - 47244/99

  NOVOTKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 24340/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 15189/10

  CICHOPEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 36184/13

  KRISTIANA LTD. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 31419/04

  SOFFER c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 08.09.2005 - 18624/03

  IVANCIUC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 19.12.2018 - 54155/16
• OLG Oldenburg, 04.04.2018 - 1 Ws 157/18

  Verfahrensgebühr, Bemessung, Mittelgebühr
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 62414/00

  PALUSINSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  WNUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 53180/99

  GORIZDRA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 3460/03

  SHEIDL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.11.2006 - 30263/04

  TEREBA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 47938/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 12278/03

  PADALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 29690/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 48814/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 24192/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 10613/07

  HOSL-DAUM AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 3569/12

  RENARD ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  ACAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 12413/03

  BIZIUK AND BIZIUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 63343/00

  ROSHKA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 37858/97

  ASCHAN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 27702/95

  KWASKIEWICZ, LESNIEWSKI, SUTARZEWICZ AND GORCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 44977/09

  KISLYAK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 14337/02

  LISS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 19276/05

  [ENG]
• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 28617/95

  WARDZIAK v. POLAND
• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 28999/95

  TKACZYK v. POLAND
• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 28240/95

  WALICKI v. POLAND
• EKMR, 10.03.1981 - 8531/79

  A., B., C. ET D. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 60821/00

  DIAMANTIDES c. GRECE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

  Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

  However, where domestic law does provide for individual access to proceedings before a Constitutional Court or another similar superior court which does have the power to examine an appeal lodged directly against a law, Article 6 may be applicable (see Xero Flor w Polsce sp. Z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, § 190, 7 May 2021, with further references).
• EuGH, 18.12.2025 - C-448/23

  Vertragsverletzung eines Mitgliedstaats - Art. 2 EUV - Art. 4 Abs. 3 EUV - Art. …

  z o.o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718, §§ 290 und 291), entschied der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte auf Antrag einer Gesellschaft, deren Verfassungsbeschwerde vom Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Verfassungsgerichtshof) zurückgewiesen worden war, dass die Ernennung von M. M., eines der Richter des Spruchkörpers, der ihre Verfassungsbeschwerde geprüft hatte, mit schweren Unregelmäßigkeiten behaftet war, die den Wesensgehalt des in Art. 6 der am 4. November 1950 in Rom unterzeichneten Europäischen Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten (im Folgenden: EMRK) verankerten Rechts auf ein "auf Gesetz beruhendes Gericht" verletzten.

  z o.o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718), auf der Grundlage desselben Sachverhalts entschieden, dass ein Verstoß gegen eine für die Wahl der Richter des Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Verfassungsgerichtshof) geltende nationale Grundregel begangen worden sei, und zwar insbesondere vom Sejm (Abgeordnetenkammer) in der achten Legislaturperiode und vom Präsidenten der Republik Polen.

  Außerdem betraf diese Wahl Richterstellen am Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Verfassungsgerichtshof), die bereits mit den drei am 8. Oktober 2015 in der siebten Legislaturperiode des Sejm (Abgeordnetenkammer) gewählten Richtern rechtmäßig besetzt worden waren (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 7. Mai 2021, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o./Polen, CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718, §§ 268, 275 und 277).

  Somit verstießen diese Weigerung des Präsidenten der Republik Polen und seine Vereidigung der drei am 2. Dezember 2015 gewählten Richter auch gegen die nationalen Grundregeln für die Ernennung der Richter des Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Verfassungsgerichtshof) (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 7. Mai 2021, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o./Polen, CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718, §§ 269, 270 und 278).

  Rn. 272 Insbesondere angesichts dieser Erwägungen hat der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte entschieden, dass die Nichtbeachtung der Urteile des Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Verfassungsgerichtshof) vom 3. und 9. Dezember 2015, die die Gültigkeit der Wahl von Richtern dieses Gerichts betrafen, durch die polnischen Legislativ- und Exekutivorgane den Zweck des Erfordernisses eines "zuvor durch Gesetz errichteten Gerichts" beeinträchtigt habe, die Justiz vor rechtswidrigen äußeren Einflüssen zu schützen, und dass die Wahl von drei Richtern am 2. Dezember 2015 mit schweren Unregelmäßigkeiten behaftet gewesen sei, die den Wesensgehalt des in Art. 6 EMRK vorgesehenen Rechts auf ein "auf Gesetz beruhendes Gericht" verletzt hätten (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 7. Mai 2021, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o./Polen, CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718, §§ 281, 289 und 290, und EGMR, 15. März 2022, Grzęda/Polen, CE:ECHR:2022:0315JUD00435721, § 277).

• EuGH, 10.09.2024 - C-29/22

  Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (GASP): Der Gerichtshof präzisiert den …

  z o. o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718, § 187), anwendbar sei.

  z o. o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718, § 187), zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK hervorgehe, zur Begründung der Zuständigkeit des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union in substantiierter Weise ein streitiges Verfahren in Bezug auf ein nach innerstaatlichem Recht anerkanntes Recht anstrengen und nachweisen, dass sie die Wirkungen der streitigen Maßnahme unmittelbar erfahren habe.

• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19

  Streit um Justizreform: Polen verurteilt

  While it is true that the judgment was given after the composition of the Constitutional Court had changed following the December 2015 election of five new judges (for factual details see the information on the election process in Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, §§ 8-35, 7 May 2021 (not yet final); see also paragraph 112 above), this by itself could not serve as a ground for creating a new and divergent interpretation of the Constitution.

  I note that such a legal rule was clearly identified in the case of Xero Flor v. Poland (no. 4907/18, § 277, 7 May 2021).

  While it is true that the judgment was given after the composition of the Constitutional Court had changed following the December 2015 election of five new judges (for factual details see the information on the election process in Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, §§ 8-35, 7 May 2021 (not yet final); see also paragraph 112 above), this by itself could not serve as a ground for creating a new and divergent interpretation of the Constitution.

• EGMR, 16.12.2025 - 34701/21

  Gondert ./. Deutschland - Begründungspflicht bei Nichtvorlage an den EuGH

  z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, § 166, 7 May 2021; and Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26878/07, § 43, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18

  GRZĘDA v. POLAND

  z o.o. v. Poland (no. 4907/18, §§ 289-91, 7 May 2021), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant company's right to a "tribunal established by law" on account of the presence on the bench of the Constitutional Court of Judge M.M., whose election it found to have been vitiated by grave irregularities.

  Any reader who is familiar with the Court's case-law will realise that the present judgment draws heavily on what has already been stated in a number of recent Chamber judgments (see Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021; Broda and Bojara v. Poland, nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18, 29 June 2021; Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021; and Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021; see also Advance Pharma sp.

  Much more important legal questions concerning the reform of the Polish judiciary have already been settled in several Chamber judgments (see Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021; Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021; Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021; and Advance Pharma sp.

• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 26374/18
  z o.o. c. Pologne (n° 4907/18) ; Broda c. Pologne (n° 26691/18) et Bojara c. Pologne (n° 27367/18) ; Żurek c. Pologne (n° 39650/18) ; Sobczyńska et autres c. Pologne (nos 62765/14, 62769/14, 62772/14 et 11708/18) et Reczkowicz et autres c. Pologne (nos 43447/19, 49868/19 et 57511/19).
• EuGH, 17.11.2022 - C-204/20

  Bayer Intellectual Property - Art. 258 AEUV - Vertragsverletzung eines …

  z o.o./Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0507JUD000490718), festgestellt, dass das Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Verfassungsgerichtshof) kein durch Gesetz errichtetes Gericht, sondern ein politisches Organ sei, dessen Entscheidungen nicht bindend seien.
• LG Aachen, 06.12.2021 - 330 StVK 1055/21

  Rechtsstaatsprinzip Richterliche Unabhängigkeit Justizsystem Republik Polen Polen …

  Rn. 259 b) Urteil vom 07.05.2021 - 4907/18 -.

  Rn. 260 Mit Urteil vom 07.05.2021 - 4907/18 - stellte der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte fest, dass die Republik Polen gegen das Recht des klagenden Unternehmens auf ein faires Verfahren aus Art. 6 EMRK verstoßen habe.

• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WA?�ĘSA v. POLAND

  z o.o. (no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021, §§ 289-291) that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant company's right to a "tribunal established by law" on account of his presence on the bench of the Constitutional Court, as his election had been vitiated by grave irregularities.

  z o.o. v. Poland (no. 4907/18, §§ 19, 58-61, 96, 106, 174, 256, 259, 261-262 and 271-291, 7 May 2021) referred to by his initials "M.M.".

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.03.2025 - C-448/23

  Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Generalanwalt Spielmann hält die Klage der Europäischen …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.07.2021 - C-132/20

  Generalanwalt Bobek: Die vom Obersten Gericht Polens geschilderten Umstände sind …
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21

  M.L. v. POLAND
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.12.2022 - C-204/21

  Generalanwalt Collins: Das polnische Gesetz zur Änderung der Vorschriften über …
• EGMR, 21.05.2026 - 62765/14

  SOBCZY?ƒSKA c. POLOGNE et 3 autres affaires
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 1298/19

  A.P. AND R.P. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 11454/17

  PRZYBYSZEWSKA v. POLAND and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18

  BRODA c. POLOGNE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR - 3639/21 (anhängig)

  K.C. v. POLAND and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 10103/20

  SIEC OBYWATELSKA WATCHDOG POLSKA v. POLAND
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.12.2021 - C-562/21

  DFON
• EGMR, 05.02.2026 - 46238/20

  MORAWIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.12.2025 - 21853/23

  DE SIMONE v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 13.11.2025 - 6030/21

  Grundsatzdebatte gefordert: Polen verletzt EMRK, Schwangere erhält Entschädigung
• EGMR, 28.05.2026 - 35788/25
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 8701/21

  PINKAS AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 06.01.2026 - 9570/23

  ALTINER AKINCI v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 13.11.2025 - 39987/22

  RIBAREV v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  A.M. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.11.2025 - 19689/21

  ILIEVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 5420/16

  ROGALSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 37474/20

  CANI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2026 - 53371/18

  SENER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 41097/20

  DUDEK v. POLAND and 11 OTHER APPLICATIONS
• EGMR, 06.01.2026 - 489/24

  YOKU?žLU v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 25240/20

  GYULUMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 64144/14

  COSTA SANTOS c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 17.02.2022 - 74131/14

  Y. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 19022/22

  KHANDANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2025 - 13375/18

  SIEDLECKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 7428/17

  MUSTAFA ET MUSTAFOVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 42668/21

  I.G. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR - 36780/23 (anhängig)

  MIKECIN MIŠETIĆ v. CROATIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 28.05.2025 - 28275/23

  SCI ESPERANZA c. MONACO
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 68907/14

  KORGUN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 67568/16

  CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 20952/21

  A.T. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR - 43575/22 (anhängig)

  KALAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.11.2024 - 63277/19

  ZAKRZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR - 17392/26 (anhängig)

  DZIURDA AND OTHERS v. POLAND