Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLIZA v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 37641/97

  MATWIEJCZUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees' letters with the "censored" stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003 and Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 57, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 92/03

  PISK-PISKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees' letters with the "censored" stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003 and Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 57, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99

  KWIEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  Accordingly, the prohibition on censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to the applicant (see Michta v. Poland, cited above, Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  As from that date he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and, consequently, that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (cf. Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII.
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  In the Court's view, the fact that the case concerned a member of a criminal gang should be taken into account in assessing compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 57, 16 January 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 11562/10

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law concerning monitoring of detainees" correspondence is set out in the Court's decision given in the case Mocny v. Poland (dec.), no. 47672/09, 30 November 2010, and in its judgment handed down in the case Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.

  The Court has already established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning the monitoring of detainees" correspondence (see, for example, Salapa v. Poland, no. 35489/97, §§ 91-102, 19 December 2002; Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, §§ 94-102; Mianowski v. Poland, no. 42083/98, §§ 62-67, 16 December 2003; Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, §§ 26-29, 14 June 2005; Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 23-31, 6 December 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 57-62, 4 May 2006; Maksym v. Poland, no. 14450/02, §§ 27-33, 19 December 2006; Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, §§ 28-32, 6 September 2007; Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 59-66, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, §§ 34-41, 8 January 2008; Dzitkowski v. Poland, no. 35833/03, §§ 53-57, 27 November 2007; Stepniak v. Poland, no. 29366/03, §§ 21-25, 29 January 2008 and Miernicki v. Poland, no. 10847/02, §§ 83-87, 27 October 2009).

• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI ET 57 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  8363/04.
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 39912/06

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Mocny v. Poland (dec.), no. 47672/09, 30 November 2010 and Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.

• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 44025/08

  FRIEDENSBERG v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of prisoners' correspondence are set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  BISTA v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law concerning censorship of detainees' correspondence is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 43837/06

  MISIAK v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  CHYLA v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of prisoners' correspondence are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kliza v. Poland no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007 and Biśta v. Poland, no. 22807/07, § 21, 12 January 2010.
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

  [ENG]

  In numerous cases concerning the monitoring of prisoners" correspondence with the Court it was settled practice that the Court would raise of its own motion the issues of compliance with Article 8 and, in some cases also of compliance with Article 34 of the Convention (see, amongst many others, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 20, 14 June 2005; Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, § 19, 6 December 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 52, 4 May 2006; Maksym v. Poland, no. 14450/02, § 20, 19 December 2006; Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 20, 6 September 2007; Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, § 56, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, § 23, 8 January 2008; Dzitkowski v. Poland, no. 35833/03, § 50, 27 November 2007, Stepniak v. Poland, no. 29366/03, § 14, 29 January 2008, Miernicki v. Poland, no. 10847/02, § 75, 27 October 2009).
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 33187/05

  KARMAZYN v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Mocny v. Poland (dec.), no. 47672/09, 30 November 2010 and Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 35819/06

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Mocny v. Poland (dec.), no. 47672/09, 30 November 2010 and Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 19495/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 12772/06

  KOTOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 42785/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 49128/06

  KRAWIECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 6881/03

  [ENG]