Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JEDAMSKI AND JEDAMSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 73547/01
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73547/01

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73547/01

  The Court has ruled that, guaranteeing to litigants an effective right of access to courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations", Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used towards this end but, while the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in that respect, the final decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court (see, Kreuz v. Poland, cited above, § 53, and, mutatis mutandis, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, § 26).
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73547/01

  The Court recalls that, as it has held on many occasions, Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal (see, among many other authorities, Kreuz v. Poland, judgement of 19 June 2001, no. 28249/95, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 39199/98

  PODBIELSKI AND PPU POLPURE v. POLAND

  Having consulted the parties, the President of the Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the cases of Kniat v. Poland and Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland (applications nos. 71731/01 and 73547/01) (Rule 42 § 2).

  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 (no. 1) v. Poland (appl. no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; see also Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01), §§ 29-39).

• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 71731/01

  KNIAT v. POLAND

  Having consulted the parties, the President of the Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the cases of Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland and Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland (applications nos. 39199/98 and 73547/01) (Rule 42 § 2).].

  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 (appl. no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; see also Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01), §§ 29-39).

• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 5274/06

  STALL v. POLAND

  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, 17.10.2017 - 38130/12

  GRÜNER v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof stellt zunächst fest, dass eine vom Bundesverfassungsgericht verhängte Missbrauchsgebühr keine im Anfangsstadium des Verfahrens erhobene Gerichtsgebühr darstellt (vgl. Jedamski und Jedamska ./. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73547/01, Rdnr. 66, 26. Juli 2005).
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  URBANEK v. AUSTRIA

  It has held for instance that the imposition of very substantial fees, resulting in the respective applicants' desisting from the claim and the case not being heard by a court, impaired the very essence of their right of access to a court (see Kreuz, cited above, § 66; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, § 66, 26 July 2005; and Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, §§ 38-40, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); these three cases concerned excessive court fees imposed at the initial stage of the proceedings; in addition, see Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, § 46, 26 July 2005, regarding the imposition of excessive court fees at the appeal stage).
• EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 46917/99

  STANKIEWICZ c. POLOGNE

  La Cour rappelle d'emblée qu'elle a conclu à plusieurs occasions que la taxe judiciaire réclamée aux parties aux procédures civiles constituait une restriction qui portait atteinte à l'essence même du droit d'accès à un tribunal garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Kreuz c. Pologne (no 1), no 28249/95, § 60, CEDH 2001-VI ; Jedamski et Jedamska c. Pologne, no 73547/01, § 60, 26 juillet 2005 ; et Podbielski et PPU Polpure c. Pologne, no 39199/98, § 64, 26 juillet 2005).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 32971/03

  PALEWSKI v. POLAND

  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 (appl. no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI); see also: Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, §§ 46-47, 26 July 2005 and Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39.
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 34216/07

  PIETKA v. POLAND

  The Court first reiterates that it has found on several occasions that a court fee levied on parties to civil proceedings constituted a restriction that impaired the very essence of the applicants" right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kreuz v. Poland (no. 1), no. 28249/95, § 60, ECHR 2001-VI; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, § 60, 26 July 2005; and Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, § 64, 26 July 2005).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 38151/05

  RUSEN c. ROUMANIE

  Il rappelle que la subordination de l'accès au juge à des frais de procédure ne représente pas en soi une atteinte au droit à un procès équitable (Weissman et autres c. Roumanie, no 63945/00, CEDH 2006-... (extraits), Jedamski et Jedamska c. Pologne, no 73547/01, 26 juillet 2005) et qu'une bonne administration de la justice peut justifier des frais de justice dont le montant doit s'apprécier à la lumière des circonstances particulières de chaque affaire (Tolstoy Miloslavsky c. Royaume-Uni, 13 juillet 1995, série A no 316-B).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 59444/00

  KANIA v. POLAND

  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, §§ 23-33, ECHR 2001-VI; see also Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, §§ 29-39).
• EGMR, 13.06.2019 - 65860/12

  WESOLEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51472/12

  SMOLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 1783/04

  FELIX BLAU SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 9590/06

  KATA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 20482/03

  CIBICKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 13828/02

  GRUDZINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 275/02

  KUCZERA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 36595/03

  PONICHTERA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 26397/02

  KORDOS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 6134/03

  GOSPODARCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.01.2007 - 23779/02

  KOZLOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 78851/16

  MICHALSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 16828/02

  KUPIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR - 53105/22 (anhängig)

  TOPALOGLU v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 38399/03

  POLEJOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 73002/01

  KIJEWSKA v. POLAND