Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (incompatibility ratione personae non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 8932/05
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05
• EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 8932/05

Wird zitiert von ... (33)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  The Government referred to the Court's case law in similar cases (Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 18; Daud v. Portugal, judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, § 33).

  The Government further recalled that a State could not be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes (Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 36).

  Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or be privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 749, § 38; Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30.03.1999; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  Article 6 § 1 might sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proved indispensable for an effective access to court either because legal representation was rendered compulsory, as was done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 26).

  This is particularly so of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12-13, § 24).

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  The fair, public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings are of no value at all if there are no judicial proceedings (Golder v the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 31-39).

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  It followed from the independence of the legal profession from the State that the conduct of defence was essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal aid scheme or be privately financed (Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations" (see, among many other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1544-45, § 44; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, § 13-15).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  The Court further reiterates that the requirement that an appellant be represented by a qualified lawyer before the court of cassation, such as applicable in the present case, cannot, in itself, be seen as contrary to Article 6. This requirement is clearly compatible with the characteristics of the Supreme Court as a highest court examining appeals on points of law and it is a common feature of the legal systems in several member States of the Council of Europe (see, for instance, Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 69; Vacher v. France, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, pp. 2148-49, §§ 24 and 28; Tabov v. Poland, § 42).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  Assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  A restrictive interpretation of the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 would not be consonant with the object and purpose of the provision (De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, § 30).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46800/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  In this context, the Court points out that there is no obligation under the Convention to make legal aid available for disputes (contestations) in civil proceedings, as there is a clear distinction between the wording of Article 6 § 3 (c), which guarantees the right to free legal assistance on certain conditions in criminal proceedings, and of Article 6 § 1, which does not contain any reference to legal aid (Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 20, ECHR 2002-II; Essaadi v. France, no. 49384/99, § 30, 26 February 2002).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether the relevant authorities should take action (see the above-mentioned Daud judgment, p. 750, §§ 40-42) and whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as "practical and effective" (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, p. 11, § 27; Rutkowski v. Poland, cited above).
• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98

  GNAHORE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97

  ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.12.2001 - 29692/96

  R.D. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 12825/02

  TABOR v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

  TUZINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

  SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

  In so far as the Government referred to the compensatory remedies and argued that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, the Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected such arguments in previous cases (e.g. Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 59, 22 March 2007; Subicka v. Poland, referred to above, § 28, 14 September 2010).

  The applicant referred to the Court's finding of a violation of the Convention in the case of Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007.

  The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009, and Subicka v. Poland, referred to above, § 40).

• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06

  SUBICKA v. POLAND

  The Court further considers that the Government's objection that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention is closely linked to the substance of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1. Its examination should therefore be joined to the merits of the case (see Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 59, 22 March 2007).

  The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).

• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

  ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, p. 11, § 27; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007).

  [8] Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007.

• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 20520/08

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, 28 July 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.

  The applicant was therefore left with no realistic opportunity of having his case brought to and argued before the Supreme Court by the legal-aid lawyer within the time-limit provided for by law (see Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 115-116, 22 March 2007).

• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 19236/07

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, 28 July 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.

  The Court has already found that the way in which those regulations were applied in practice were capable of leaving legally-aided parties with no realistic opportunity of having their cases brought to the Supreme Court within the time-limit provided for by law (Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, no. 8932/05, §§ 11 - 155).

• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29956/09

  [ENG]

  She referred, inter alia, to the Court's judgment in her case (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007) and argued that her entitlement to the pension should be re-examined, given, in particular, that the Court had acknowledged that she had been denied access to the Supreme Court.

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right of acces to The Supreme Court (see, for example, Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 22 March 2007; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007; Zapadka v. Poland no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009).

• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 355/04

  SOBCZYNSKI v. POLAND

  The Government are prepared to pay the applicant a sum of PLN 10, 000 as just satisfaction, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law (see the judgment of 22 March 2007 in the case of Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05 and the judgment of 22 March 2007 in the case of Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00).

  It notes in this connection that it has already addressed the issue giving rise to the instant case in its Sialkowska v. Poland judgment (no. 8932/05) of 22 March 2007.

• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 28157/08

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, 28 July 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.

  The Court has already found that the way in which those regulations were applied in practice were capable of leaving legally-aided parties with no realistic opportunity of having their cases brought to the Supreme Court within the time-limit provided for by law (Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, no. 8932/05, §§ 11 - 155).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  [ENG]

  It will depend on the circumstances of the case whether, taking the proceedings as a whole, the legal representation may be regarded as practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico, cited above, § 33; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 27, Series A no. 76; Rutkowski, cited above; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 121-122; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-100, 22 March 2007; and Ebanks v. the United Kingdom, no. 36822/06, §§ 71-73, 26 January 2010).
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that the applicant does not complain about the lawyer's refusal to file a cassation appeal and the impact which this had on his right of access to the Supreme Court (compare Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00 and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 2870/11

  VAMVAKAS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34736/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 48132/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53653/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 15140/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 6831/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 45947/10

  ARTYMIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 24250/11

  PIOTR KOZLOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 52809/08

  AGIER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 16406/10

  BEDNARZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43619/08

  WILCZYNSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 40373/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 35046/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 19554/03

  SIENKIEWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 16190/04

  WISNIEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 12947/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 32002/03

  SAWKO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 37781/06

  PAWLAK v. POLAND