Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CACUCI AND S.C. VIRRA & CONT PAD S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);No violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CACUCI ET S.C. VIRRA & CONT PAD S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [FRA]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 27153/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  TAMOSIUS contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  The Court reiterates its established case-law on the matter: the notion of an effective remedy in this context does not presuppose the possibility of challenging the issuing of a warrant prior to a search (see, mutatis mutandis, Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII and Ilyia Stefanov, § 59, cited above).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

  CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  It reiterates that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited, it being in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply that law (see Chappell v. the United Kingdom, 30 March 1989, § 54, Series A no. 152-A).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  Under these circumstances, the Court considers that they implicitly but unequivocally waived an important guarantee offered to them by the domestic legal system (see, mutatis mutandis, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 202, ECHR 2007-IV), which would have allowed them to perform an ex post facto check of the content of the computer in order to reveal any possible manipulation of the relevant files.

 
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  On that basis, the Court will consider the alleged violations of the Convention from only the perspective of the first applicant (hereafter "the applicant"), there being no doubt that she can be considered a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 (see, mutatis mutandis, Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 251-B; see also Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, § 21, 31 July 2003; and Sérvulo & Associados - Sociedade de Advogados, RL and Others v. Portugal, no. 27013/10, §§ 79-80, 3 September 2015).
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  In line with its case-law on the matter, the Court considers that there has been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her home in the present case (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, ECHR 2005-IV; Niemietz v. Germany, cited above, §§ 29-31; see also, mutatis mutandis, Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  Articles 275-2781 set out the procedure for any person wanting to challenge any of the measures or decisions taken during a criminal investigation, in the event that these had harmed his or her legitimate interests (see, for instance, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 50, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  In a sphere covered by the written law, the "law" is the enactment in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  In line with its case-law on the matter, the Court considers that there has been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her home in the present case (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, ECHR 2005-IV; Niemietz v. Germany, cited above, §§ 29-31; see also, mutatis mutandis, Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 5201/11

  SHER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  Elements taken into consideration are, in particular: whether the search was undertaken pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge and based on reasonable suspicion; the circumstances in which the search warrant was issued, in particular the further evidence available at that time; whether the scope of the warrant was reasonably limited; and the manner in which the search was carried out, including the presence of independent observers during the search in order to ensure that materials subject to professional secrecy were not removed (see, inter alia, Smirnov, cited above, § 44, and, mutatis mutandis, Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5201/11, § 172, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).