Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZYNGER v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the first proceedings Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the second proceedings Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 66096/01
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 66096/01
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

  NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

  Therefore, in our opinion, the outcome of this case should follow the Court's conclusion in the case of Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI where the Court noted that "The parties have agreed that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable to the present case.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant 's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, among other authorities, the Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

  In the light of this, and bearing in mind that the parties' arguments before it were focused on the issue of compliance with Article 6 § 1, the Court will proceed on the basis that it is applicable to these proceedings (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 40, ECHR 2001-VIII; The Fortum Corporation v. Finland, no. 32559/96, §§ 36-40).
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

  GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see, in respect of criminal proceedings, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 159, ECHR 2000-XI, in respect of civil proceedings Gibas v. Poland, no. 24559/94, Commission decision of 6 September 1995, Decisions and Reports 82-A, p. 76 and Witczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 47404/99, 23 October 2001).
• EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

  Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

  They relied on the Zimmerman and Steiner v. Switzerland judgment of 13 July 1983 (Series A no. 66, p. 35, § 36).

• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  WAWRZYNOWICZ v. POLAND

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).

  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; Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004, § 62; and Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004, § 45).

• 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).

  It has already repeatedly found that the administrative law remedies available under Polish law were effective in cases in which an applicant complains of excessive length of administrative proceedings (see, Zynger v. Poland (dec.), no. 66096/01, 7 May 2002, and Bukowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38665/97, 11 June 2002).

• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 56026/00

  WENDE AND KUKOWKA 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; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, § 45, 13 July 2004).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 21695/05

  TUR v. POLAND

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).

  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; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004, § 45).

• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

  SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA v. POLAND

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 76299/01

  WROBLEWSKI 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; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, § 45, 13 July 2004).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 40387/06

  KRAWCZAK v. POLAND

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; and Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 24203/05

  KYZIOL v. POLAND

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, 21 September 2004, and Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 72169/01

  RZESZOWSKA-SOBCZYK v. POLAND

  As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 15071/02

  MAJ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28436/04

  STULA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 13146/02

  RAFINSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 66079/01

  BOCZON v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 22346/02

  WROBLEWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 64212/01

  WOJTUNIK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 14580/02

  WIERCIGROCH v. POLAND