Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WASIEWSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  WASIEWSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999 V and Knaggs and Khachik v. the United Kingdom (dec.) nos.
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  Equally, an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he has not used was bound to fail (Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 121 et seq., ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  Equally, an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he has not used was bound to fail (Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 121 et seq., ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, namely, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107 10 September 2010 and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, § 55).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  Moreover, according to the Court's case-law suing a private individual cannot be regarded as a remedy in respect of an act on the part of the State (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 22, § 48; and Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96 § 47 in fine, ECHR 1999-II and Zlínsat, spol.
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  As a consequence, complaints intended to be made before this Court should have first been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law, and any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV and Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFarlane v. Ireland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, namely, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107 10 September 2010 and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, § 55).
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 3485/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  The Court has already examined this remedy in the context of general measures introduced at domestic level covering persons affected by the systemic problem identified in the Hutten-Czapska pilot judgment (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 41, 28 April 2008 and Association of Real Property Owners in Lódź and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

  MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
• EGMR, 28.06.2006 - 26499/02

  D. v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 77363/01

  PELLEGRITI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 46559/06

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  WYSZY?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  As regards the claim for damages against the municipality under section 18(5) of the 2001 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code, the Court has already examined this remedy and found it effective in that it had enabled landlords to obtain compensation for losses incurred owing to the municipal authorities' failure to provide social housing to tenants (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014).
• EGMR, 23.03.2021 - 36300/15

  GEJER MISSBACH v. POLAND

  The Court has already examined the remedy under section 18(5) of the 2001 Act and found it effective in that it had enabled landlords to obtain compensation for losses incurred owing to the municipal authorities' failure to provide social housing to tenants (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014 Kołpaczewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 10872/11, 6 December 2016).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 10872/11

  KOLPACZEWSKA v. POLAND

  The Court has already examined this remedy in the context of general measures introduced at the domestic level covering persons affected by the systemic problem identified in the Hutten-Czapska pilot judgment (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 41, 28 April 2008, and Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, §§ 70 and 72, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and recently in two other cases against Poland (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014).