Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16, 64407/16 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WIEDER AND GUARNIERI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-general;(Art. 37-1-a) Absence of intention to pursue application;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (21)
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
For the applicants, this was consistent with the Court's approach to jurisdiction in respect of other Convention rights, including Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 78, ECHR 2007-I; Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 137, ECHR 2005-VI; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 28, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 49 and 51, Series A no. 108), Article 6 (see, for example, Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2006-XIV), Article 13 (see Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, §§ 120-23, ECHR 2012) and Article 5 (see Stephens v. Malta (no. 1), no. 11956/07, §§ 51-54, 21 April 2009.Although there are important differences between electronic communications, for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention, and possessions, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it is nevertheless the case that an interference with an individual's possessions occurs where the possession is interfered with, rather than where the owner is located (see, for example, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, ECHR 2007-I).
- EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
To not look at the individual cases of other complainants who could establish the relevant locus would be contrary to Roman Zakharov v. Russia ([GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015) and Weber and Saravia v. Germany ((dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI), and to its own duty under RIPA.Where domestic law provides an effective remedy for persons who believe that their communications have been intercepted, such persons may claim to be victims of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting secret measures only if they are able to show that, due to their personal situation, they are potentially at risk of being subjected to such measures (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 171, ECHR 2015).
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
Moreover, it would undermine the position adopted in Kennedy v. the United Kingdom (no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010), in which the Court approved the role of the IPT to such an extent that in Roman Zakharov it was prepared to recognise that in consequence there could be a different approach to locus in claims before it.In addition, the Court notes that in other applications before it, which were lodged before the Supreme Court judgment in the Privacy International case, the Government did not suggest that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because they did not seek to judicially review the decision of the IPT (see, for example, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008, Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010, and Big Brother Watch and Others, cited above).
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00
Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
To not look at the individual cases of other complainants who could establish the relevant locus would be contrary to Roman Zakharov v. Russia ([GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015) and Weber and Saravia v. Germany ((dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI), and to its own duty under RIPA.While the question of jurisdiction was alluded to in Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 72, ECHR 2006-XI and in Big Brother Watch and Others (cited above, § 272), in neither case was it necessary to decide the issue.
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10
ARLEWIN v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
Similarly, in Arlewin v. Sweden (no. 22302/10, §§ 63 and 65, 1 March 2016) the Court found that injury to the applicant's privacy and reputation occasioned by the broadcast of a television programme took place in Sweden, where the programme was broadcast, and not in the United Kingdom, where the broadcaster had its head office. - EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
It would, for example, be unduly formalistic to require applicants to exhaust a remedy which even the highest court of their country would not oblige them to exhaust (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 117 and 118, ECHR 2007-IV). - EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
46113/99 and 7 others, §§ 87-88, ECHR 2010). - EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
BAUMANN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
The exhaustion of domestic remedies is normally determined at the date on which the application is lodged with the Court (Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)). - EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
For the applicants, this was consistent with the Court's approach to jurisdiction in respect of other Convention rights, including Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 78, ECHR 2007-I; Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 137, ECHR 2005-VI; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 28, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 49 and 51, Series A no. 108), Article 6 (see, for example, Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2006-XIV), Article 13 (see Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, §§ 120-23, ECHR 2012) and Article 5 (see Stephens v. Malta (no. 1), no. 11956/07, §§ 51-54, 21 April 2009. - EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 40429/14
BOSAK AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16
In Bosak and Others v. Croatia (nos. 40429/14 and 3 others, 6 June 2019) the Court did not consider whether the interception of the communications of the two applicants who were living in the Netherlands fell within Croatia's jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, perhaps because those applicants' telephone conversations were intercepted and recorded by the Croatian authorities on the basis of secret surveillance orders lawfully issued against another applicant, who lived in Croatia and with whom they had been in contact. - EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91
AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 3409/10
AZER AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99
V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …
- EGMR, 14.09.2022 - 24384/19
Europas IS-Anhänger: Großeltern klagen auf Rückholung
- EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03
MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 04.05.2021 - 41139/15
AKDENIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10
TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 46259/16
PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM