Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 38184/03, 68761/01, 34030/07, 37469/05, 38886/05, 37293/09, 49974/08, 10104/08, 52443/07, 50399/07, 24254/05, 23119/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MATYJEK ET 11 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MATYJEK AND 11 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 38184/03
- EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 38184/03
- EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 38184/03, 68761/01, 34030/07, 37469/05, 38886/05, 37293/09, 49974/08, 10104/08, 52443/07, 50399/07, 24254/05, 23119/05
Wird zitiert von ... (5)
- EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 22588/08
SÕRO v. ESTONIA
The Court observes in this connection that there is no uniform approach among High Contracting Parties as to the measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems (see Matyjek v. Poland (dec.), no. 38184/03, § 36, ECHR 2006-VII).70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005; and Zickus v. Lithuania, no. 26652/02, 7 April 2009) as well as lack of access to the information on the basis of which the persons" collaboration with former secret services was established (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, 24 April 2007) or reduction of pensions of the persons concerned (see Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.) no. 15189/10 and other applications, 14 May 2013).
70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005; Zickus, cited above; and Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, 24 April 2007).
[11] Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, 30 May 2006, Bobek v. Poland, no. 68761/01, 17 July 2007, and Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, 15 January 2008.
[16] Matyjek v. Poland (dec.), no. 38184/03, ECHR 2006-...., and Bobek v. Poland (dec.), no. 68761/01, 24 October 2006.
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05
LUBOCH v. POLAND
The Court further observes that it has already found that Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applied to lustration proceedings (see, Matyjek v. Poland (dec.), no. 38184/03, ECHR 2006-... and Bobek v. Poland (dec.), no. 68761/01, 24 October 2006). - EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04
BERARU v. ROMANIA
The failure to afford such access has weighed, in the Court's assessment, in favour of the finding that the principle of equality of arms had been breached (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, §§ 59 and 63, ECHR 2007-V, and Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 64 and 68, 15 January 2008). - EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07
JALOWIECKI v. POLAND
The Court firstly observes that it has already found that Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applied to lustration proceedings (see, Matyjek v. Poland (dec.), no. 38184/03, ECHR 2006-... and Bobek v. Poland (dec.), no. 68761/01, 24 October 2006). - EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 63772/16
GALAN c. ITALIE
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOSCICKI v. POLAND
Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3 (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00
TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07
The Court has already dealt with the issue of lustration proceedings in Turek v. Slovakia (no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006 - (extracts)) and in Ä?damsons v. Latvia (no. 3669/03, 24 June 2008). - EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05
LUBOCH v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07
The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; and Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings. - EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07
The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; and Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings. - EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07
GORNY v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07
The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are similar to those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 64, ECHR 2007-V; Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 69-72, 15 January 2008; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, §§ 52-55, 28 April 2009; and Górny v. Poland, no. 50399/07, § 22, 8 June 2010) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings. - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07
Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national court (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
- EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 29908/11
IVANOVSKI v.
70665/01 and 74345/01, ECHR 22 January 2004), the Court found Article 6 to be applicable under its civil head only, whereas in the Matyjek case (cited above, loc. cit.) and a number of follow-up cases against Poland (see, for example, Bobek v. Poland, no. 68761/01, 17 July 2007, and Moscicki v. Poland, no. 52443/07, 14 June 2011) it held that this Article was applicable under its criminal head.