Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOSS v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine under P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99

  The Court recalls that, in the context of Article 13 and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, it has already held that such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, in order to be "effective" must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that had already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, Bukowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38665/97, 11 June 2002, unreported).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99

  It follows that the applicant has claims, in respect of which he can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, among other authorities, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII), Therefore, his claims can be said to fall within the ambit of the provision relied on by him.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99

  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, 01.02.2005 - 51837/99

  BELLER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99

  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, 11.02.2003 - 38665/97

  BUKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 52495/99

  The Court recalls that, in the context of Article 13 and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, it has already held that such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, in order to be "effective" must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that had already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, Bukowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38665/97, 11 June 2002, unreported).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  [ENG]

  For a presentation of the relevant domestic law, see Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, 8 February 2006; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006; and Borysiewicz, no. 71146/01, 1 July 2008.

  The Court recalls that, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, as well as the inactivity of relevant authorities, it has already held that in order to be "effective" such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that has already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, and Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, § 43, 28 March 2006).

• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 41753/09

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, are set out at length in the cases of Grabinski v. Poland no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006, Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 21-25, 28 March 2006, and Kaniewski v. Poland no. 8049/02, §§ 22-28, 8 November 2005.

  Furthermore, 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 administrative court (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; Kolodziej v. Poland (dec.), no. 47995/99, 18 October 2005; Szablinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 52462/99, 2 February 200; Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, 17 October 2006; Olszewska v. Poland, no. 13024/05, 18 December 2007; Oledzki v. Poland (dec.), no. 13715/03, 4 January 2008; Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, 1 July 2008; Paliga and Adamkowicz v. Poland, no. 23856/05, 4 April 2009; Serafin v. Poland, no. 36980/04, 21 April 2009; 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; Derda v. Poland, no. 58154/08, § 44, 1 June 2010; Kuderewska and Kuderewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 48531/07, 9 February 2010; Darkowska and Darkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 31339/04, § 49, 15 November 2011);.

• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 12253/03

  RATYNSKA v. POLAND

  For a presentation of the domestic law concerning inactivity on the part of administrative authorities, see: Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, 8 February 2006, and Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006.

  The applicability of Article 6 § 1 to proceedings concerning claims arising against the background of the Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw of 26 October 1945 has already been determined by the Court (Potocka and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 33776/96, 6 April 2000; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, § 29, 28 March 2006).

• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 36980/04

  [ENG]

  For a presentation of the domestic law concerning inactivity of administrative authorities, see: Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, 8 February 2006, and Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006.

  The relevant domestic law and practice relating to administrative proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land can be found in the Court's decisions in the cases Potocka and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 33776/96, 6 April 2000 and Szenk v. Poland (dec.), no. 67979/01, 1 June 2004 and the judgment in the case Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, § 29, 28 March 2006.

• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 34105/03

  BEATA BOGUSLAW AGAINST POLAND AND 34 OTHER CASES

  52495/99.
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 49725/11

  WCISLO v. POLAND

  The Court has already examined the effectiveness of the combination of remedies for excessively lengthy administrative proceedings and found them found them effective (see, among other authorities, Bukowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38665/97, 11 June 2002; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 43-49, 28 March 2006; Turczanik v. Poland, no. 38064/97, § 54, ECHR 2005-VI; Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland, no. 12605/03, §§ 89-90, 21 July 2009 and Derda v. Poland, no. 58154/08, § 58, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 43702/02

  GRABINSKI v. POLAND

  The Court recalls that it has already determined that Article 6 § 1 is applicable to proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land (cf. Potocka and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 33776/96, 6 April 2000; Szenk v. Poland (dec.), no. 67979/01, 1 June 2004; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, § 29, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 48531/07

  KUDEREWSKA AND KUDEREWSKI v. POLAND

  Furthermore, 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 (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; Kolodziej v. Poland (dec.), no. 47995/99, 18 October 2005; Szablinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 52462/99, 2 February 200; Grabinski v. Poland, no. 43702/02, 17 October 2006; Olszewska v. Poland, no. 13024/05, 18 December 2007; Oledzki v. Poland (dec.), no. 13715/03, 4 January 2008; Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, 1 July 2008; Paliga and Adamkowicz v. Poland, no. 23856/05, 4 April 2009; Serafin v. Poland, no. 36980/04, 21 April 2009; 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, 19.11.2013 - 5745/09

  [ENG]

  For a presentation of the relevant domestic law see the cases of Kaniewski v. Poland, no. 38049/02, 8 February 2006; and Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006.
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 9834/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 53339/09

  SIERMINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 1415/11

  POTOCKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 41265/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 48242/06

  GIZA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 11700/04

  KRZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 56311/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 42797/06

  KOSINSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 24523/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30030/06

  FLORCZYK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 58154/08

  DERDA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 6669/03

  GIERMEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 9399/03

  TOMASZEWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 23856/05

  PALIGA AND ADAMKOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 51123/07

  SERAFIN AND OTHERS v. POLAND (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 21246/05

  GRACZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 27710/05

  LIDIA KITA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 23484/02

  BERENT-DERDA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 35760/06

  WILCZYNSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 11101/04

  RYGALSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33046/03

  KULAGA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 3515/07

  SZENK v. POLAND (NO.2)
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 31419/03

  JASNOWSKI AND JASNOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 24831/05

  ROMANN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 26764/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 33017/03

  WOJCICKA-SUROWKA v. POLAND