Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=22072/02
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 10:23:30
Document Index: 296173288

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 35', '§ 32', '§ 35', '§ 32', '§ 35', '§ 32', '§ 35']

Rechtsprechung: 22072/02 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 14.10.2003 | EGMR, 17.12.2002
EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 62101/00
FURLEPA v. POLAND
EGMR, 19.04.2005 - 72686/01
SHARKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 49706/99
EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 31397/03
STANCLIK c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 15110/05
ENE c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 19795/02
WIACEK v. POLAND
EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54727/00
EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 45982/06
ANDRZEJCZYK v. POLAND
EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 39958/02
PIATKIEWICZ v. POLAND
EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 14580/02
WIERCIGROCH v. POLAND
EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 72164/01
WARDESZKIEWICZ v. POLAND
EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 12174/02
NOWAK AND ZAJACZKOWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 51832/99
EGMR, 10.12.2002 - 33895/96
PIETRZAK v. POLAND
EGMR, 06.12.2001 - 53227/99
MAJSTOROVIC v. CROATIA
EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 37675/02
SZKUP v. POLAND
https://dejure.org/2003,34587
EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 22072/02 (https://dejure.org/2003,34587)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.10.2003 - 22072/02 (https://dejure.org/2003,34587)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Januar 2003 - 22072/02 (https://dejure.org/2003,34587)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,34587) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 22072/02
The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same as those already examined and rejected by the Court in previous cases against Poland (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May 2005; and Barszcz v Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006) and the Government have not submitted any new elements which would lead it to depart from its previous findings.
It held that no evidence of any judicial practice had been provided to show that a claim for compensation based on Article 417 of the Civil Code had ever been successful before the domestic courts (see Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003, and Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, 14 October 2003).
Plus précisément, la Cour a rejeté les arguments du Gouvernement parce qu'ils n'étaient étayés par aucune preuve documentaire ni aucune pratique judiciaire, mais s'appuyaient uniquement sur l'interprétation de l'article 417 donnée par la Cour constitutionnelle polonaise dans son arrêt du 4 décembre 2001 (paragraphes 38-39 ci-dessus) à titre d'obiter dictum (voir, par exemple, Malasiewicz c. Pologne, no 22072/02, § 32, 14 octobre 2003).
In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principle, the Court finds that the Government have failed to substantiate their contention that the remedy at issue is an effective one (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no 22072/02, § 32, 14 October 2003; Skawinska v Poland (dec), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at that time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for excessive length of proceedings or that such action offered reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003, and Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003).
It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at that time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for excessive length of proceedings or that such action offered reasonable prospects of success (see, Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003, and for administrative proceedings, Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006).
It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at that time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for excessive length of proceedings or that such action offered reasonable prospects of success (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003, and, for administrative proceedings, Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006).
It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced by the Government to show that the above-mentioned provisions of the Civil Code could at that time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for the excessive length of proceedings or that such an action offered reasonable prospects of success (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003, and, for administrative proceedings, Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006).
It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at that time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for the excessive length of proceedings or that such an action offered reasonable prospects of success (see Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003, and, for administrative proceedings, Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006).
EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 15072/02
LUKJANIUK v. POLAND
EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 8612/02
EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 77835/01
NIEROJEWSKA v. POLAND
EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 1524/02
https://dejure.org/2002,53890
EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 22072/02 (https://dejure.org/2002,53890)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.12.2002 - 22072/02 (https://dejure.org/2002,53890)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Dezember 2002 - 22072/02 (https://dejure.org/2002,53890)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,53890) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.