Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KWIEK v. POLAND
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 8 (correspondence with defence counsel and courts) No violation of Art. 8 (correspondence with sister-in-law) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 51895/99
- EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
Wird zitiert von ... (53) Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
Any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland, judgment cited above, § 78). - EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88
CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
Any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland, judgment cited above, § 78). - EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 37641/97
MATWIEJCZUK v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
The Court recalls that in a number of its previous judgments - for instance, those in the cases of Matwiejczuk v. Poland (no. 37641/97, judgment of 2 December 2003, § 101) and of Mianowski v. Poland (no. 42083/98, judgment of 16 December 2003, § 65) - it has already dealt with the question whether Polish law as it stood at the material time indicated with the reasonable clarity the scope and manner of control of prisoners" correspondence. - RG, 30.05.1908 - I 30/08
Förmlichkeiten des Protestes, durch den die Präsentation eines eigenen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
30/08/2006. - EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 42083/98
MIANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
The Court recalls that in a number of its previous judgments - for instance, those in the cases of Matwiejczuk v. Poland (no. 37641/97, judgment of 2 December 2003, § 101) and of Mianowski v. Poland (no. 42083/98, judgment of 16 December 2003, § 65) - it has already dealt with the question whether Polish law as it stood at the material time indicated with the reasonable clarity the scope and manner of control of prisoners" correspondence.
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
[ENG]
Under Article 103 read in conjunction with Article 214 § 1 of that Code, a detainee's correspondence with institutions set up by international treaties ratified by Poland concerning the protection of human rights shall not be censored (see Kliza, cited in paragraph 104 above, §§ 30-32; and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, 30 May 2006, §§ 23-24). - EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 10816/02
KOZIMOR v. POLAND
For a more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions, see the Court's judgments in Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 33, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 23, 30 May 2006.Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the 1997 Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to detained persons (see Michta v. Poland, cited above, § 61, Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 45133/06
ZBOROWSKI v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of prisoners' correspondence is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 33-39, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 21-24, 30 May 2006.Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the detainee's counsel, with the State authorities and with the Council of Europe Information Office, contained in Articles 8 § 3, 102 (11) and 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to persons detained on remand (see Michta v. Poland no. 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 31038/06
ANDRYSIAK v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 33-39, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 21-24, 30 May 2006.Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, is also applicable to persons in pre-trial detention (see Michta v. Poland no. 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
- EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 39519/05
ZBOROWSKI v. POLAND (N° 3)
The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Michta v. Poland, no 13425/02, §§ 33-39, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no 51895/99, § 21-24, 30 May 2006.Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the detainee's counsel, contained in Article 8 § 3 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, is also applicable to persons in pre-trial detention (see Michta v. Poland no 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; and Kwiek v. Poland, no 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 38007/02
WARSINSKI v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of prisoners' correspondence is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 33-39, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 21-24, 30 May 2006.Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to detained persons (see Michta v. Poland no. 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
- EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 43750/06
NUSRET KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
The Court would further observe that, in assessing whether an interference with the exercise of the right of a convicted prisoner to respect for his correspondence was "necessary" for one of the aims set out in Article 8 § 2, regard has to be paid to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment; some measure of control over prisoners" correspondence is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see, among other authorities, Silver and Others, cited above, § 98; Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 39, 30 May 2006; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 105, 13 September 2005). - EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04
[ENG]
Under Article 103 read in conjunction with Article 214 § 1 of that Code, a detainee's correspondence with institutions set up by international treaties ratified by Poland concerning the protection of human rights shall not be censored (see Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, 30 May 2006, §§ 23-24). - EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03
POROWSKI v. POLAND
Accordingly, the prohibition on censorship of correspondence with a detainee's counsel contained in Article 8 § 3 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted people, is also applicable to prisoners on remand (see Michta, cited above, § 61, and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006). - EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 19218/07
[ENG]
Accordingly, the prohibition on censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to the applicant (see Michta, cited above, and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006). - EGMR, 03.06.2025 - 9389/19
UYGUN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 23623/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 44025/08
FRIEDENSBERG v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
MIROSLAW ZIELINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 10847/02
MIERNICKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 8403/02
MGLOSIK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 31116/03
FELINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 8260/04
OCHLIK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 72976/01
JASINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04
KLIZA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 64284/01
OLEKSY v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 24322/02
PANUSZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05
PAWLAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 7677/02
GASIOROWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 8713/03
JANUS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 20251/04
JANULIS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03
LEWAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 23042/02
CABALA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 43837/06
MISIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 3489/03
CEGLOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 77832/01
DZYRUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19
KARA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 44521/04
KOLODZINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34907/05
HINCZEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 20138/03
BOBEL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 35833/03
DZITKOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 37639/19
A.V. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 42332/06
BEREZA c. POLOGNE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 13637/03
BARTOSINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 12772/06
KOTOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 42785/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 26744/02
KISIELEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 49128/06
KRAWIECKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 26846/05
CWIERTNIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 29366/03
STEPNIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 36161/05
JAKUBIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04
OWSIK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 6390/03
NOWICKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 14450/02
MAKSYM v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 73988/01
LUCZKO v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.10.2003 - 51521/99
KUCHARSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 17482/02
DOBROWOLSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 8676/03
TADEUSZ KAMINSKI v. POLAND
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 51895/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 51895/99
- EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 51895/99
The Court will assess the reasonableness of the length of the impugned proceedings in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR-2000-X).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".