Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 5274/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
STALL v. POLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
Struck out of the list (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95
KREUZ c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 5274/06
The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 23-33 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 June 2001 in the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI); see also Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, (no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39).The Court has established in a number of cases brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about lack of access to a court on account of excessive court fees (see cases Kreuz v. Poland no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005, Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, 26 July 2005 and Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, 26 July 2005).
- EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73547/01
JEDAMSKI AND JEDAMSKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 5274/06
The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 23-33 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 June 2001 in the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI); see also Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, (no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39).The Court has established in a number of cases brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about lack of access to a court on account of excessive court fees (see cases Kreuz v. Poland no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005, Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, 26 July 2005 and Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, 26 July 2005).
- EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03
SULWINSKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 5274/06
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 78851/16
MICHALSKI v. POLAND
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 in the context of delayed non-emergency medical procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, 12 March 2013; Todorov v. Ukraine, no. 16717/05, 12 January 2012; Dumikyan v. Russia, no. 2961/09, 13 December 2016; and Bujak v. Poland, no. 686/12, 21 March 2017) and of Article 6 in the context of the restriction of the right of access to a court on account of excessive court fees (Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005, Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, 26 July 2005; Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, 26 July 2005 and Irena Stall v. Poland (strike out) no. 5274/06, 10 March 2009).