Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KACPRZYK v. POLAND

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII, and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

  In particular, the Court considered that the remedy was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42).

• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  Having regard to the foregoing and noting that the offences with which the applicant had been charged, even though they carried a severe penalty, were not violent crimes and that the case did not belong to the category of organised crime (compare Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)), the Court concludes that the grounds given by the domestic authorities could not justify the overall period of the applicant's detention.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).

• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 45219/06

  KAUCZOR v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  The relevant statistical data, recent amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure designed to streamline criminal proceedings and references to relevant Council of Europe materials including the 2007 Resolution of the Committee of Ministers, can be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Kauczor (see Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, §§ 27-28 and 30-35, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004 and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 97, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004 and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 97, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 18036/03

  CICHLA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  Moreover, according to the established case-law, having exhausted the available remedy, the applicant was not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a constitutional complaint (see, for example, Cichla v. Poland no. 18036/03, § 26, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 15667/03

  WOLF v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  15667/03 and 2929/04, § 78, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 30848/03

  BRONK c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  It follows from the Court's case-law that the applicant is not required to appeal against each and every decision extending his detention (see, by contrast, Bronk v. Poland (dec.), no. 30848/03, 11 September 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25792/94

  TRZASKA AND 172 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  50020/06.
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 75157/14

  Asylbewerber monatelang festgehalten: Polen muss 12.000 Euro Entschädigung zahlen

  Secondly, referring to the Court's well-established case-law, for example, Kacprzyk v. Poland (no. 50020/06, § 29, 21 July 2009) the applicants argued that they were not required to appeal against each and every decision extending their detention in order to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  POROWSKI v. POLAND

  Their objective is to secure the review of the lawfulness of detention at any given time in the proceedings, both in their pre-trial and trial stage, and to obtain release if the circumstances of the case no longer justify continued detention (see Kacprzyk v. Poland, 50020/06, § 29, 21 July 2009; Iwańczuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 25196/94, 9 November 2000; and Wolf v. Poland, nos.

• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  [ENG]

  In so far as the Government refer to the compensatory remedies in respect of the alleged excessive length of detention, the Court reiterates that under the established case-law, having exhausted one available remedy, namely appeals against decisions further extending his detention, the applicant was not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing actions of compensatory character before the courts (see Kacprzyk v. Poland no. 50020/06, § 30, 21 July 2009; Bista v. Poland, no. 22807/07, § 29, 12 January 2010; Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, § 51, 8 November 2005; and Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, § 49, 19 January 2010).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 46117/07

  BIENIEK c. POLOGNE

  La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence pertinente en l'espèce dont il ressort que l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention n'exige pas qu'un requérant, après avoir interjeté recours à l'encontre de décisions prolongeant sa détention provisoire, doive encore nécessairement tenter d'obtenir le redressement d'une violation alléguée de la Convention en saisissant la Cour constitutionnelle (voir, par exemple, Kacprzyk c. Pologne, no 50020/06, §§ 27-31, 21 juillet 2009 ; Wegera c. Pologne, no 141/07, 19 janvier 2010, § 47).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 141/07

  WEGERA c. POLOGNE

  La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence pertinente en l'espèce dont il ressort que l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention n'exige pas qu'un requérant, après avoir interjeté recours à l'encontre de décisions prolongeant sa détention provisoire, doive encore nécessairement tenter d'obtenir le redressement d'une violation alléguée de la Convention en saisissant la Cour constitutionnelle (voir, par exemple, Kacprzyk c. Pologne, no 50020/06, §§ 27-31, 21 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  BISTA v. POLAND

  Moreover, according to the established case-law, having exhausted one available remedy, namely an appeal against the decision extending further his detention, the applicant was not required to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a constitutional complaint (see Kacprzyk v. Poland no. 50020/06, § 30, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 27952/08

  [ENG]

  However, the Court cannot agree with the domestic authorities' assessment that the fact that the applicant had gone into hiding in the past was alone sufficient to establish, without further inquiry, a risk that he would abscond or otherwise obstruct the proceedings (see, for example, Kacprzyk v. Poland, 50020/06, § 40, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 1127/06

  [FRE]

  La Cour rappelle qu'il ressort de nombreuses décisions prononcées dans des affaires polonaises qu'aux fins de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes, un requérant n'est pas tenu de faire appel contre chaque ordonnance portant sur la prolongation de sa détention provisoire (voir, notamment Kacprzyk c. Pologne, no 50020/06, §§ 27-31, 21 juillet 2009, ou, a contrario, Bronk c. Pologne (déc.), no30848/03, 11 septembre 2007).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 42146/07

  POLANSKI v. POLAND

  However, the mere fact that the applicant had been charged with forgery of identity documents, which led the authorities to believe that if released he could easily conceal his true identity, was not, in the Court's view, sufficient to conclude that the risk of the applicant's going into hiding existed throughout the entire period of his detention (see, for example, Kacprzyk v. Poland, 50020/06, § 40, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 14943/07

  WOJCIECH PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 47243/13

  VALENCIA BAENA c. POLOGNE