Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 30.05.2006

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 30210/96, 27916/95, 49975/99, 64974/01, 72999/01, 71151/01, 5413/02, 34220/96, 47627/99, 72994/01, 71152/01, 53413/99, 38328/97, 52040/99, 13282/04, 39597/98, 4922/02, 60299/00, 21340/04, 43316/98, 38665/97, 49035/99, 27918/95, 71893/01, 17484/02, 20838/0   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,38024
EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 30210/96, 27916/95, 49975/99, 64974/01, 72999/01, 71151/01, 5413/02, 34220/96, 47627/99, 72994/01, 71152/01, 53413/99, 38328/97, 52040/99, 13282/04, 39597/98, 4922/02, 60299/00, 21340/04, 43316/98, 38665/97, 49035/99, 27918/95, 71893/01, 17484/02, 20838/0 (https://dejure.org/2015,38024)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.12.2015 - 30210/96, 27916/95, 49975/99, 64974/01, 72999/01, 71151/01, 5413/02, 34220/96, 47627/99, 72994/01, 71152/01, 53413/99, 38328/97, 52040/99, 13282/04, 39597/98, 4922/02, 60299/00, 21340/04, 43316/98, 38665/97, 49035/99, 27918/95, 71893/01, 17484/02, 20838/0 (https://dejure.org/2015,38024)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Dezember 2015 - 30210/96, 27916/95, 49975/99, 64974/01, 72999/01, 71151/01, 5413/02, 34220/96, 47627/99, 72994/01, 71152/01, 53413/99, 38328/97, 52040/99, 13282/04, 39597/98, 4922/02, 60299/00, 21340/04, 43316/98, 38665/97, 49035/99, 27918/95, 71893/01, 17484/02, 20838/0 (https://dejure.org/2015,38024)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,38024) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KUDLA ET 204 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises pour l'exécution de l'engagement auquel a été subordonnée la solution de l'affaire (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KUDLA AND 204 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken for the execution of the undertakings attached to the solution of the case (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

  • EKMR, 20.04.1998 - 30210/96
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
  • EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 30210/96, 27916/95, 49975/99, 64974/01, 72999/01, 71151/01, 5413/02, 34220/96, 47627/99, 72994/01, 71152/01, 53413/99, 38328/97, 52040/99, 13282/04, 39597/98, 4922/02, 60299/00, 21340/04, 43316/98, 38665/97, 49035/99, 27918/95, 71893/01, 17484/02, 20838/0
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (42)

  • EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03

    WESOLOWSKA v. POLAND

    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 Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).

    It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at the relevant time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for excessive length of proceedings or that such action offered reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003, Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003, and for administrative proceedings Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006).

  • EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 13146/02

    RAFINSKA v. POLAND

    For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, i.e. the 2004 Act, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 66079/01

    BOCZON v. POLAND

    For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland, (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,66368
EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,66368)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.05.2006 - 71152/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,66368)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Mai 2006 - 71152/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,66368)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,66368) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BARSZCZ v. POLAND

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

    GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01
    In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and insofar as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999- I).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01
    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 Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01
    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).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01
    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 Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

    WAWRZYNOWICZ v. POLAND

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; and Barszcz v Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

    [1] For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.

  • EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 13146/02

    RAFINSKA v. POLAND

    For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, i.e. the 2004 Act, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 66079/01

    BOCZON v. POLAND

    For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland, (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

     
  • EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 13893/02

    GOLIK v. POLAND

    The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice concerning the remedies against unreasonable length of proceedings are set out in paragraphs 26-35 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 30 May 2006 in the case of Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-...; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, §§ 41-45, 30 May 2006) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 22346/02

    WROBLEWSKA v. POLAND

    For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, i.e. the 2004 Act, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and that the Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 56026/00

    WENDE AND KUKOWKA v. POLAND

    [1] For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.
  • EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 15072/02

    LUKJANIUK v. POLAND

    The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice concerning the remedies against unreasonable length of proceedings are set out in paragraphs 26-35 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 30 May 2006 in the case of Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-...; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, §§ 41-45, 30 May 2006) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 8612/02

    NOWAK v. POLAND

    The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice concerning the remedies against unreasonable length of proceedings are set out in paragraphs 26-35 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 30 May 2006 in the case of Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-...; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, §§ 41-45, 30 May 2006) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 1524/02

    MAJCHRZAK v. POLAND

    The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice are set out in paragraphs 26-35 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 30 May 2006 in the case of Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-...; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, §§ 41-45, 30 May 2006) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 77835/01

    NIEROJEWSKA v. POLAND

    The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice are set out in paragraphs 26-35 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 30 May 2006 in the case of Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01.

    The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-...; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, §§ 41-45, 30 May 2006) and the Government have not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings.

  • EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 12174/02

    NOWAK AND ZAJACZKOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 24407/04

    ONOUFRIOU v. CYPRUS

  • EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02

    APOSTOL v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 20838/02

    CHYB v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 12958/02

    NOWAK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

    WEDLER v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 57764/00

    RYBCZYNSKA v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht