Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIFSUD v. MALTA

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Zwangsweisen Vaterschaftstest darf Gesetzgeber vorsehen

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIFSUD v. MALTA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 58757/00

  JÄGGI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  Lastly, referring to Jäggi v. Switzerland (no. 58757/00, ECHR 2006-X) which concerned the same circumstances save that the putative father in that case was deceased - the court confirmed that a particularly rigorous scrutiny was necessary in weighing competing interests in cases of ascertaining parentage, and that a person's right to ascertain parentage was a vital interest protected by the Convention.

  They referred to Mikulic v. Croatia (no. 53176/99, ECHR 2002-I), Jäggi v. Switzerland (no. 58757/00, ECHR 2006-X) and Pascaud v. France (no. 19535/08, § 62, 16 June 2011).

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  Secondly, the Court observes that, in the criminal sphere Article 8 of the Convention does not as such prohibit recourse to a medical procedure in defiance of the will of a suspect, or in defiance of the will of a witness, in order to obtain evidence (see, respectively, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 70, ECHR 2006-IX and Caruana v. Malta, (dec.), no. 41079/16, 15 May 2018).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  Its task is confined to determining whether the methods adopted and the effects they entail are in conformity with the Convention (Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 94, ECHR 2005-XI and Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 184, 8 November 2016).

 
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 41079/16

  CARUANA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  Secondly, the Court observes that, in the criminal sphere Article 8 of the Convention does not as such prohibit recourse to a medical procedure in defiance of the will of a suspect, or in defiance of the will of a witness, in order to obtain evidence (see, respectively, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 70, ECHR 2006-IX and Caruana v. Malta, (dec.), no. 41079/16, 15 May 2018).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  The Court has previously held that the taking of cellular material and its retention as well as the determination and retention of DNA profiles extracted from cellular samples constitute an interference with the right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 71 to 77, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  Relying on Malone v. the United Kingdom (2 August 1984, Series A no. 82) and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1983, Series A no. 61), he noted that a law which confers discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion, which in the applicant's view implied that a law which did not cater for the exercise of discretion, should not be deemed to be in accordance with the law.
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  In the Court's view, the remaining questions related to the measure's lawfulness, such as the consequences of the measure on the proceedings, the automatic nature of the rule and the alleged unforseeability in certain cases, are closely linked to the issue of proportionality and fall to be examined as an aspect thereof, under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 216, 6 June 2013; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 28945/95, § 72, ECHR 2001-V, and Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  Where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, the Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  Relying on Malone v. the United Kingdom (2 August 1984, Series A no. 82) and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1983, Series A no. 61), he noted that a law which confers discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion, which in the applicant's view implied that a law which did not cater for the exercise of discretion, should not be deemed to be in accordance with the law.
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  They referred to Mikulic v. Croatia (no. 53176/99, ECHR 2002-I), Jäggi v. Switzerland (no. 58757/00, ECHR 2006-X) and Pascaud v. France (no. 19535/08, § 62, 16 June 2011).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95

  T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  MASKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 41542/13

  E.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, the Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014 and Mifsud v. Malta, no. 62257/15, § 39, 29 January 2019).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 32771/16

  BATZIOGIANNIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Il ne lui revient donc aucunement de se prononcer in abstracto sur la compatibilité avec la Convention de l'article 7 A du code des expropriations, mais seulement d'apprécier, in concreto, si la manière dont elle a été appliquée aux requérants ou les a touchés a donné lieu à une violation de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Mifsud c. Malte, no 62257/15, § 67, 29 janvier 2019).