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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  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, 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, 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, 26.05.2005 - 77363/01

  PELLEGRITI c. ITALIE

  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, 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, 28.06.2006 - 26499/02

  D. v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006 and Fox v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 42).
• 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, 08.03.2011 - 3485/02

  ASSOCIATION OF REAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN LÓDZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  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, 30.08.2011 - 46559/06

  KNAGGS AND KHACHIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  46559/06 and 22921/06, § 155, 30 August 2011).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  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, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  WYSZYNSKI 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, 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 Lódź 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).