Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68843
EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68843)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.07.2009 - 8958/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68843)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juli 2009 - 8958/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68843)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68843) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (31)Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    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, and Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, § 13-15).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    A requirement that an appellant be represented by a qualified lawyer before the court of cassation, such as 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 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; Tabor, cited above, § 42; Staroszczyk v. Poland, referred to above, § 129; Sialkowska v. Poland, referred to above, § 106).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

    IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    Nevertheless, assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38).
  • EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46800/99
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    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 (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 20, ECHR 2002-II, and Essaadi v. France, no. 49384/99, § 30, 26 February 2002).
  • EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    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; and Rutkowski, cited above).
  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97

    ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    Given the special nature of the court of cassation's role, which is limited to reviewing whether the law has been correctly applied, the Court is able to accept that the procedure followed in such courts may be more formal (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2001 - 29692/96

    R.D. v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    In discharging its obligation to provide parties to proceedings with legal aid when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Del Sol, cited above, § 21, Staroszczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 130, Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, § 107, and R.D. v. Poland, nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97, § 44, 18 December 2001; mutatis mutandis).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03

    KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    [1] Kulikowski v. Poland, n° 18353/03, 19 May 2009 and Antonicelli v. Poland, n° 2815/05, 19 May, 2009.
  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the party 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; and Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

    RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04
    Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the party 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; and Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

    TUZINSKI v. POLAND

  • RG, 19.01.1897 - 9/97

    1. Müssen diejenigen richterlichen Mitglieder des Schwurgerichtes, vor denen die …

  • EuGH, 10.02.2009 - C-301/06

    DIE RICHTLINIE ÜBER DIE VORRATSSPEICHERUNG VON DATEN IST AUF EINE GEEIGNETE …

    Gegenstand dieses Vorschlags war die Vorratsspeicherung von Daten, die in Verbindung mit der Bereitstellung öffentlicher elektronischer Kommunikationsdienste verarbeitet und aufbewahrt werden, oder von Daten, die in öffentlichen Kommunikationsnetzen vorhanden sind, für die Zwecke der Vorbeugung, Ermittlung, Aufdeckung und Verfolgung von Straftaten einschließlich Terrorismus (Dokument des Rates Nr. 8958/04).
  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06

    SUBICKA v. POLAND

    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).

    That approach was regarded by the Court as being incompatible with Convention standards, save for rather rare situations where the refusal of the legal-aid lawyer was notified to the applicant well before the deadline was due to expire (see Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 63-65, 28 July 2009).

  • EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02

    [ENG]

    In discharging its obligation to provide parties to proceedings with legal aid when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II; Staroszczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 130, Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, § 107, Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, § 4, 28 July 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, § 34, 15 September 2009 and R.D. v. Poland, nos.

    I have elaborated on this in my dissenting opinions in Kulikowski v. Poland, 8958/04, 19 May 2009, and Smyk v. Poland, 18353/03, 28 July 2009.

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.10.2008 - C-301/06

    NACH ANSICHT DES GENERALANWALTS BOT IST DIE RICHTLINIE ÜBER DIE …

    {FN:6} - Dokument des Rates Nr. 8958/04, CRIMORG 36, TELECOM 82.
  • 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.

    That approach was regarded by the Court as being incompatible with Convention standards, save for situations where the refusal of the legal-aid lawyer was notified to the applicant well before the deadline was due to expire (see Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 63-65, 28 July 2009).

  • EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 56334/08

    [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.

    That approach was regarded by the Court as being incompatible with Convention standards, save for situations where the refusal of the legal-aid lawyer was notified to the applicant well before the deadline was due to expire (see Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 63-65, 28 July 2009).

  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 11414/15

    BULATOWICZ v. POLAND

    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 Staroszczyk v. Poland no. 59519/00, §§ 38-65, 22 March 2007; Siałkowska v. Poland no. 8932/05, §§ 20-47, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland no. 8958/04, §§ 16-42, 28 July 2009; Bąkowska v. Poland no. 33539/02, §§ 13-33, 12 January 2010; and Zapadka v. Poland no. 2619/05, §§ 23-47, 15 December 2009.

    The general principles of the Court's case-law concerning access to a court of cassation are summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Staroszczyk v. Poland (no. 59519/00, §§ 123-29, 22 March 2007); Siałkowska v. Poland (no. 8932/05, §§ 101-07, 22 March 2007); Smyk v. Poland (no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009); Bąkowska v. Poland (no. 33539/02, §§ 44-55, 12 January 2010); and Zapadka v. Poland (no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).

  • EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 1735/09

    OWCZARZAK v. POLAND

    The Court notes that the Government already relied on identical argument in other cases (e.g. Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, § 35-37, 12 January 2010 and Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, § 44-46, 28 July 2009).

    The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Bakowska v. Poland, cited above § 44-48, Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, §§ 99-107, 22 March 2007; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 121-129, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-61, 28 July 2009).

  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

    [ENG]

    In discharging its obligation to provide parties to proceedings with legal aid when it is provided by domestic law, the State must, moreover, display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II; Staroszczyk v. Poland, cited above, § 130, Sialkowska v. Poland, cited above, § 107, Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, § 4, 28 July 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, § 34, 15 September 2009 and R.D. v. Poland, nos.
  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08

    [ENG]

    The Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (see Staroszczyk v. Poland, §§ 121-129; Sialkowska v. Poland, §§ 101-07; and Bakowska v. Poland, §§ 44-48; cited above; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009; and Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

    SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 65546/13

    GORZKOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34851/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 8649/15

    IMPLOM v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 44727/09

    HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 45213/07

    CHOROBIK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09

    INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 57944/08

    KEDRA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 19236/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 15140/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 6831/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 24250/11

    PIOTR KOZLOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 40466/05

    SZYMANOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43619/08

    WILCZYNSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 35046/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 28157/08

    [ENG]

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht