Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WAWRZYNOWICZ v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 73192/01
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01

  BARSZCZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  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.), 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, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

  KUSMIEREK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  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, 13.07.2004 - 66096/01

  ZYNGER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  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, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  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; 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, 10.05.2007 - 56026/00

  WENDE AND KUKOWKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  The Court considers that when the relevant law provides individuals with a possibility of lodging a complaint without being represented by a lawyer, domestic court should advise applicants on how to remedy the formal deficiencies of their complaints (see Wende and Kukowka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, § 54, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 50224/99

  SIDLOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  Therefore, applying the above criteria, and having regard to the vague and ill-defined nature of the requirement (see Wende and Kukowka, cited above; c.f. Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 53, 26 September 2006), the Court is satisfied that the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of her to exhaust domestic remedies.
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

  AKMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  On the facts and for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 20627/04

  LIAKOPOULOU c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  Such a limitation of one's right to a court has been found to be disproportionate to the aim of ensuring legal certainty and the proper administration of justice (see, mutatis mutandis, Liakopoulou v. Greece, no. 20627/04, §§ 23-24, 24 May 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  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-...).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

  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-...).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99

  MAJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 6923/03

  MELNIC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61444/00

  KRASUSKI v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03

  CAREVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Therefore, since the Court is not at this stage persuaded that the applicant was offered adequate compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by him as a result of the alleged violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time (see Wawrzynowicz v. Poland, no. 73192/01, § 38), it does not find it appropriate to strike the application out under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration.
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 18414/03

  WOLNICKA c. POLOGNE

  Par une lettre du 14 novembre 2008, 1e Gouvernement a invité la Cour à rayer l'affaire du rôle et a joint le texte d'une déclaration unilatérale similaire que dans les affaires Tahsin Acar c. Turquie ((question préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, ECHR 2003-VI) et Wawrzynowicz c. Pologne, no 73192/01, § 29-42, 17 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 24203/05

  KYZIOL v. POLAND

  On 28 June 2007 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration similar to that in the case of Wawrzynowicz v. Poland (no. 73192/01, 17 July 2007) and informed the Court that they were ready to acknowledge that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in which he had been involved.
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 21695/05

  TUR v. POLAND

  The Court reiterates that when it considered the 2004 Act to be an effective remedy in length cases it was prepared to accept the statutory ceiling of PLN 10, 000 only when it remained open to the applicant to lodge a civil claim and thus seek full compensation (see Charzynski, cited above, § 38; Wawrzynowicz v. Poland, no. 73192/01, § 39, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 35382/06

  SADURA c. POLOGNE

  Par une lettre du 10 décembre 2007, 1e Gouvernement a invité la Cour à rayer l'affaire du rôle et a joint le texte d'une déclaration unilatérale similaire que dans les affaires Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ((question préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, ECHR 2003-VI) et Wawrzynowicz c. Pologne, no 73192/01, § 29-42, 17 juillet 2007).