Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 16.12.2003

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 51837/99   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2005,53693
EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 51837/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,53693)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.02.2005 - 51837/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,53693)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Februar 2005 - 51837/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,53693)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,53693) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BELLER v. POLAND

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (16)

  • EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10

    RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Contrary to the Court's established case-law on the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (see, among many other examples, Kudla, cited above, § 119-124; Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, §§ 58-60, 15 October 1999; Turczanik v. Poland, no. 38064/97, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2005-VI; Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 67-71, 1 February 2005; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 28 and 33, 28 March 2006; and, in particular, Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, § 35, 11 October 2005), the courts did not examine the overall length of the proceedings but only selected parts of them.
  • EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 43702/02

    GRABINSKI v. POLAND

    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

    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 criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of 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, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, 15 October 1999, § 60, Beller v. Poland no. 51837/99, § 67-71, 1 February 2005 ).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 58154/08

    DERDA v. POLAND

    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 Supreme Administrative Court (see, e.g., 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; 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).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 9834/08

    MULARZ v. POLAND

    Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 53 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23; Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 74, 1 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 41265/05

    MAZUREK v. POLAND

    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 Supreme Administrative Court (see, e.g., Zynger (dec.), no. 66096/01, 7 May 2002; Futro v. Poland (dec.), no. 51832/99, 3 June 2003; 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).
  • EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

    BENNICH-ZALEWSKI v. POLAND

    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, and Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 67, 1 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2311/10

    PURPIAN SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

    As to the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, insofar as the applicant company can be understood as complaining that the alleged violation resulted from the excessive length of the proceedings, it is proposed to hold that the facts complained of do not give rise to any separate issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and thus it is not necessary to examine the complaint separately from the main complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings (see Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 74, 1 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 42797/06

    KOSINSKA v. POLAND

    However, in so far as the applicant complains that the length of the restitution proceedings resulted in a breach of the right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, the Court considers, in view of its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 77 above), that Article 1 of Protocol No.1 complaint does not give rise to any separate issue (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23; Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 74, 1 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30030/06

    FLORCZYK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    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 to a hierarchical complaint about inactivity of an administrative authority and to a subsequent complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court (see, e.g., 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; 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).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 11522/03

    KLIBER v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 23759/02

    PRZEPALKOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 43702/02

    GRABINSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 40732/98

    J.S. AND A.S. v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 42753/05

    ZAK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 21246/05

    GRACZYK v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 51837/99   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2003,54334
EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 51837/99 (https://dejure.org/2003,54334)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.12.2003 - 51837/99 (https://dejure.org/2003,54334)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Dezember 2003 - 51837/99 (https://dejure.org/2003,54334)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,54334) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht