Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 18.10.2011

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,64531
EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,64531)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.09.2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,64531)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. September 2013 - 18353/03, 2815/05, 41373/04, 9566/10, 35916/08, 18063/07, 7272/09, 17656/06, 40459/05, 648/02, 16286/07, 30358/04, 22183/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,64531)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,64531) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KULIKOWSKI AND 12 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (19)Zitiert selbst (23)

  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

    SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

    This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).

    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 Septembre 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011.

  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 29342/06

    SUBICKA v. POLAND

    This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).

    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010 and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.

  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

    [ENG]

    This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).

    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

  • EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 7272/09

    NOWASZEWSKI 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 Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22.

    Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in the area of effective access to the Supreme Court in the context of criminal proceedings (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

  • EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 22183/06

    [ENG]

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals in criminal cases with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009.

    Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in the area of effective access to the Supreme Court in the context of criminal proceedings (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

  • EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 54399/07

    [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 Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).

    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; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).

  • EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05

    [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 Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).

    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; Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 30-37, 19 May 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 15-16, 6 July 2010).

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04

    [ENG]

    [1] Kulikowski v. Poland, n° 18353/03, 19 May 2009 and Antonicelli v. Poland, n° 2815/05, 19 May, 2009.
  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08

    [ENG]

    This approach was found to satisfy Convention standards, provided that the applicant has been properly informed about his/her procedural rights at the time when the lawyer's refusal was communicated to him or her (see Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 69-71, ECHR 2009-... (extracts), and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 44-45, 19 May 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 37364/05

    JEMELJANOVS v. LATVIA

    In the absence of any indications of negligence or arbitrariness on the lawyers' part in relation to discharging their duties, the State had complied with its obligations to provide the applicant with effective legal aid (see Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 68, 19 May 2009).
  • EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 34118/11

    ORDRE DES AVOCATS DEFENSEURS ET AVOCATS PRES LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONACO c. MONACO

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 34164/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 56334/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 20520/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34851/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 45213/07

    CHOROBIK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 57944/08

    KEDRA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 22668/09

    INOTLEWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 19554/03

    SIENKIEWICZ v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55509
EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10 (https://dejure.org/2011,55509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.10.2011 - 9566/10 (https://dejure.org/2011,55509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Oktober 2011 - 9566/10 (https://dejure.org/2011,55509)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55509) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (5)Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

    ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    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 Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, §§ 14-22, 19 May 2009).

    Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

    See, for such criticism, the concurring opinions of Judges Bonello and Mijovic in Kulikowsky v. Poland (no. 18353/03) and Antonicelli v. Poland (no. 2815/05), both decided on 19 May 2009.

  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 648/02

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    When notified of a legal-aid lawyer's refusal to prepare a cassation appeal, it is entirely appropriate and consistent with fairness requirements, that an appeal court indicate to an appellant what further procedural options are available to him or her (see Kulikowski v. Poland, cited above, § 70; Antonicelli v. Poland, cited above, § 45; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, § 16, 6 July 2010).

    It is against the backdrop of this specific domestic decision that the instant case (as well as other similar ones where a violation has been found on account of the appellate court not having advised the prisoner about his "procedural rights" in respect of the cassation appeal, e.g. Jan Zawadzki v. Poland (no. 648/02) 6 July 2010, § 16)) has to be viewed[3].

    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

  • EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 31477/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

    See also Slowik v. Poland (no. 31477/05) 12 April 2011 where no violation was found because in the note of the appellate court accompanying the legal-aid lawyer's refusal to file a cassation appeal that court had "...informed the applicant, in compliance with the case-law of the Supreme Court...that on the date of the service of that refusal the thirty-day time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run anew.

  • EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 41373/04

    ARCINSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to set out at length the relevant principles derived from its case-law in this area (Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009).

    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.

  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
  • EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, Arcinski v. Poland, no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009, Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland, no. 648/02, 6 July 2010, Subicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 September 2010, Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland, no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2) nos.
  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 34043/05

    SUBICKA v. POLAND (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    34043/05 and 15792/06, 21 June 2011 and Kowalczyk Teresa v. Poland, no. 23987/05, 11 October 2011.
  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    34043/05 and 15792/06, 21 June 2011 and Kowalczyk Teresa v. Poland, no. 23987/05, 11 October 2011.
  • EKMR, 27.02.1995 - 15488/89

    DELLO PREITE v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    How does this requirement to inform about "procedural rights" square with - if at all - the cardinal rule that everyone is presumed to know the law, whether substantive or procedural, and regardless of whether the law is statutory, judge made (or common law in some jurisdictions) or customary as the case may be? Because of the fact that this rule is so basic and fundamental, one finds only cursory references to it in the jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court, and only in a handful of cases (e.g. Dello Preite v. Italy (no. 15488/89) Commission decision 25 February 1995; E.E. v. Austria (no. 31697/96) 7 September 1999; Polednová v. the Czech Republic (no. 2615/10) 21 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2615/10

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9566/10
    How does this requirement to inform about "procedural rights" square with - if at all - the cardinal rule that everyone is presumed to know the law, whether substantive or procedural, and regardless of whether the law is statutory, judge made (or common law in some jurisdictions) or customary as the case may be? Because of the fact that this rule is so basic and fundamental, one finds only cursory references to it in the jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court, and only in a handful of cases (e.g. Dello Preite v. Italy (no. 15488/89) Commission decision 25 February 1995; E.E. v. Austria (no. 31697/96) 7 September 1999; Polednová v. the Czech Republic (no. 2615/10) 21 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31697/96

    E.E. v. AUSTRIA

  • VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 14.05.2002 - 11/02
  • VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 27.11.2009 - 5/09

    Datenschutzrecht

  • EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03

    KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    9566/10.

    Dombrowski, application No. 9566/10, judgment of 18/10/2011, final on 18/01/2012.

    Dombrowski, application No. 9566/10, judgment of 18/10/2011, final on 18/01/2012.

  • EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34736/06

    [ENG]

    34043/05 and 15792/06, 21 June 2011; Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland no. 23987/05, 11 October 2011; Dombrowski v. Poland, no. 9566/10, 18 October 2011.
  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 35916/08

    [ENG]

    In the letter the court did not inform the applicant that under the case-law of the Supreme Court, adopted in 2002, the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run only on the date on which the defendant was served with the legal-aid lawyer's refusal (see, Dombrowski v. Poland, no. 9566/10, § 25, 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 22183/06

    [ENG]

    The Court recalls that the Government has already relied on the same arguments in the case of Dombrowski v. Poland (no. 9566/10, judgment of 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 24250/11

    PIOTR KOZLOWSKI 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, §§ 54-59, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, 28 July 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009; Subicka v. Poland, referred to above, § 40; and, specifically in the context of criminal proceedings, Dombrowski v. Poland, no. 9566/10, 18 October 2010, §§ 24-27).
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