Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07, 43524/07, 45247/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,82
EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07, 43524/07, 45247/07 (https://dejure.org/2016,82)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.01.2016 - 43519/07, 43524/07, 45247/07 (https://dejure.org/2016,82)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Januar 2016 - 43519/07, 43524/07, 45247/07 (https://dejure.org/2016,82)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,82) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MILOJEVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) ...

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NVwZ 2017, 1441
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

    OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    The Court further considers that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable to the applicants" complaints in that they concern the protection of their "inner circle", particularly the material well-being of themselves and their families (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 166, ECHR 2013).

    Although no general right to employment can be derived from Article 8, the Court has consistently held that the notion of "private life" includes professional activities (see, inter alia, Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, §§ 109-110, ECHR 2014, Bigaeva v. Greece, no. 26713/05, § 23, 28 May 2009, and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 165-67, ECHR 2013).

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    The difference between the purpose pursued by the respective safeguards afforded by Articles 6 and 8 may, in the light of the particular circumstances, justify the examination of the same set of facts under both Articles (see, among many authorities, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, § 91, Series A no. 307-B and Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 20-22, Series A no. 18).
  • EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

    VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    Although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument of the parties involved (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).
  • EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

    H. v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    Merely citing the language of the imprecise provision cannot be regarded as sufficient reasoning (see H. v. Belgium, 30 November 1987, § 53, Series A no. 127-B).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

    McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    The difference between the purpose pursued by the respective safeguards afforded by Articles 6 and 8 may, in the light of the particular circumstances, justify the examination of the same set of facts under both Articles (see, among many authorities, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, § 91, Series A no. 307-B and Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 20-22, Series A no. 18).
  • EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

    BLECIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that incompatibility ratione temporis is a matter which goes to the Court's jurisdiction rather than a question of admissibility in the narrow sense of that term (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III).
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    Where there are several effective remedies available, it is for the applicant to select which remedy to pursue in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    The law should be both adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49; the Larissis and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 378, § 40; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

    NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    It considers that Article 8 is applicable to the applicants" complaints in that it concerned the protection of their moral and psychological integrity as well as their reputation, all of which fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012; Kyriakides v. Cyprus, no. 39058/05, § 41, 16 October 2008; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 22, Series A no. 91; Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).
  • EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

    HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07
    The law should be both adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49; the Larissis and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 378, § 40; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

    HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00

    ABEBERRY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

    MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

    HAJNAL v. SERBIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht