Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=NJW%202008,%202317
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 19:11:00
Document Index: 238785080

Matched Legal Cases: ['EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 6', 'EGMR', '§ 38', '§ 20', '§ 16', '§ 13', '§ 23', '§ 123', '§ 101', '§ 54', '§ 44', '§ 57', '§ 133', 'Art. 6', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', '§ 85', '§ 129', '§ 53', '§ 59', '§ 88', '§ 23', '§ 127', 'BGH', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', '§ 16', '§ 38', '§ 20', '§ 69', '§ 33', '§ 27', '§ 121', '§ 99', '§ 71', '§ 129', '§ 53', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR']

EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2007,27748
EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,27748)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.03.2007 - 59519/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,27748)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. März 2007 - 59519/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,27748)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,27748) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
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 ...
NJW 2008, 2317
Im Kern ist es der Begründung des Landgerichts gefolgt und hat sich dabei auf ein Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte vom 22. März 2007 (59519/00, NJW 2008, 2317) berufen.
Zu bedenken ist freilich, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in dem von der Beschwerdeentscheidung des Oberlandesgerichts in Bezug genommenen Urteil vom 22. März 2007 (59519/00, NJW 2008, 2317) zwar für das polnische Prozesskostenhilferecht darauf erkannt hat, es sei nicht Aufgabe des Staates, einen - beigeordneten - Prozesskostenhilfeanwalt dazu zu zwingen, ein nach seiner Überzeugung aussichtloses Rechtsmittel einzulegen.
EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 11414/15
BU?Â�ATOWICZ 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; Sia??kowska v. Poland no. 8932/05, §§ 20-47, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland no. 8958/04, §§ 16-42, 28 July 2009; Bakowska 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); Sia??kowska v. Poland (no. 8932/05, §§ 101-07, 22 March 2007); Smyk v. Poland (no. 8958/04, §§ 54-59, 28 July 2009); Bakowska v. Poland (no. 33539/02, §§ 44-55, 12 January 2010); and Zapadka v. Poland (no. 2619/05, §§ 57-61, 15 December 2009).
As the refusal of the legal aid lawyer was timely and met the quality requirements, the Court considers that the State offered the applicant effective enjoyment of access to justice (compare and contrast: Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 133-135, 22 March 2007).
Ferner stellt das Erfordernis der Vertretung durch einen Anwalt keinen Verstoß gegen die Anforderungen von Art. 6 EMRK dar (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 22. März 2007 - 59519/00, NJW 2008, 2317 Rn. 130).
EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05
YEVDOKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In cases involving this type of claim, the Court has not been satisfied on the basis of the available information that the Russian legal aid system offered applicants sufficient protection of their rights (see Vladimir Vasilyev, cited above, § 85; and also, for comparison, Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 129, 22 March 2007, and Larin, cited above, §§ 53-55).
The same is true as regards the principles governing the granting of legal aid as a component of the right of access to a court (see, for example, Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, §§ 59-60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2002-VI; Bertuzzi v. France, no. 36378/97, §§ 23-32, ECHR 2003-III; and Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, §§ 127-129, 22 March 2007).
BGH, 14.01.2016 - IX ZB 76/15
Statthaftigkeit der Rechtsbeschwerde hinsichtlich Einreichung durch einen …
Diese Bestimmungen verstoßen weder gegen deutsches Verfassungsrecht (BVerfGE 106, 216, 219 ff; BVerfG NJW 2008, 1293, 1294) noch gegen die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 22. März 2007, 59519/00, Staroszczyk/Polen, NJW 2008, 2317).
EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 68978/01
BATOR v. POLAND
The relevant provisions concerning the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer and the formal requirements for lodging a cassation appeal are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Tabor v. Poland, no. 12825/02, § 16-23, 27 June 2006; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 38-72, 22 March 2007 and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 20-55, 22 March 2007.
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right of access to the Supreme Court in civil proceedings on account of legal-aid lawyers" refusals to prepare cassation appeals (Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 22 March 2007), as well as concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005 and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
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).
The Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the case of Staroszczyk v. Poland (application no. 59519/00).
The Court is not satisfied on the basis of the available information that the Russian legal aid system could offer the applicant sufficient protection of his rights (see, for comparison, Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 129, 22 March 2007, and Larin, cited above, §§ 53-55).
EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 49320/07
STAKIC v. MONTENEGRO
EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 43316/08
KOWALSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 35916/08
KORGUL v. POLAND
EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08
SIWIEC v. POLAND
EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 50933/07
CALE v. ALBANIA
EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 39655/05
SOBOLEWSKI c. POLOGNE (N° 1)
EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 40229/11
MOLENDA v. POLAND
EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 70356/11
MAZURKIEWICZ v. POLAND
EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 51212/09
RUSAK c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 30909/11
SMIERCIAK c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29956/09
EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43619/08
WILCZYNSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53653/07
EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 15140/08
NOWASZEWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 40373/07
GIZINSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 6831/08
KWIATKOWSKA v. POLAND
EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 35046/07
STACHURSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 37781/06
EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 16190/04
WISNIEWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 32002/03
SAWKO v. POLAND
EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 355/04
SOBCZYNSKI v. POLAND
EGMR - 8649/15 (anhängig)
IMPLOM v. HUNGARY
EGMR - 36682/09 (anhängig)
EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 13545/10
GÄHWILER v. SWITZERLAND
EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 39137/07
MATYBA v. POLAND