poprzedni wątek | następny wątek

pl.soc.prawo

2006-06-03 16:47	Kutas Gardocki znowu przeglar w Strasbourgu	moherowy beret
Jak sie ma PRLowskie gowno zamiast mozgu, to tak juz bedzie caly czas:z niezawislym gardockim. Przypominam, ze to juz drugi raz ta sama procedura Gardockiego zostala zakwestionowana. Przez pare lat Kutas Gardocki nic nie zrobil. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1006407 Kwiek v. Poland (no. 51895/99) Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Bogdan Kwiek, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Chelm (Poland). In September 1994 the applicant began serving a five-year prison sentence for robbery. He was later charged with murder and other offences and detained on remand. In August 2000 he was convicted of armed robbery and possessing a firearm and ammunition without a licence. During his time in prison his correspondence with the Constitutional Court, the registry of the European Court of Human Rights, his defence counsel and his sister-in-law were opened without his permission by the relevant domestic authorities. The applicant complained about the censorship of his mail. He relied on of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). The Court recalled that in its previous case-law it had concluded that Polish Law concerning the control of correspondence in force before 1 September 1998 did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of the exercise of discretion conferred on public authorities. Finding no reason to depart from its previous decisions, the Court found that the monitoring of the applicant's correspondence with his defence counsel in respect of that period was not "in accordance with law" and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. Concerning the period after 1 September 1998, the Court noted that the Government admitted that the domestic authorities had acted contrary to the statutory prohibitions laid down for that purpose in Polish law regarding the applicant's correspondence with the Constitutional Court and the Court Registry. Consequently, the Court held that the interference was not "in accordance with the law" and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. As to the applicant's correspondence with his sister-in-law, the Court accepted that there was a legal basis for the opening and reading of the letters in question and that the censorship pursued a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of crime. It also found that the interference could be considered necessary in a democratic society, given the serious nature of the crimes for which the applicant stood accused. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 with respect to the opening of those letters. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.) skomentuj

2006-06-03 18:44	Re: Kutas Gardocki znowu przeglar w Strasbourgu	Robert Tomasik
moherowy beret [###ppp@opoka.org.pl.###] napisał: W 5 minut? 5 minut temu pisałeś w trybie przypuszczającym. skomentuj
2006-06-03 21:15	Re: Kutas Gardocki znowu przeglar w Strasbourgu	SQ|wysyn
Użytkownik "moherowy beret" napisał w wiadomości news:6ihgg.464$LN1.116@trndny01... > Jak sie ma PRLowskie gowno zamiast mozgu, to .. się przyjmuje przydomek 'moherowy beret' i spamuje grupy dyskusyjne. -- SQLwysyn Przeżylismy trzy zabory, przeżyjemy i kaczory ... skomentuj

nowsze

1

starsze

Tytuł	Autor	Data
Prezes SN tow. Gardocki znowu sie schlal	Sanctum Officium /prawdzi	2006-01-05 21:17
Kutas Gardocki znowu przegral w Strasbourgu	newsfeed	2006-01-11 14:20
Uwaga kutas: Piotr Kruszyński z Uniwersytet	newsfeed	2006-01-11 14:46
Prof. Gardocki o kupcji sadownistwa.	newsfeed	2006-01-11 14:55
Znowu przedawnienie	ELCO	2006-03-16 09:45
Znowu przedawnienie	ELCO	2006-03-16 09:45
Gardocki znowu przegra w Strasbourgu	moherowy beret	2006-06-03 16:42
Znowu WKU :(	Fotow	2006-06-16 17:18
WKU znowu	Fotow	2006-06-19 08:50
I znowu TePsA	DaNsOuNd	2006-07-03 22:56