Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Respect for home) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; and Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).

  In the light of the above, while it is true that no requirement of prior judicial authorisation applied in the instant case (compare Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 57, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 40, Series A no. 256-B; and Miailhe, cited above, § 38), the Court is satisfied that the interference with the applicant companies" rights to respect for correspondence and home which the contested section 4-10 (1) order entailed was subject to important limitations and was accompanied by effective and adequate safeguards against abuse (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 50, Series A no. 28; Leander, cited above, § 60; and Z, cited above, § 103).

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; and Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).

  With regard to the legal basis, it should be noted from the outset that the requirement of accessibility and foreseeability is intended to ensure adequate protection against arbitrary interference and that, to this end, the scope and manner of exercise of the powers conferred on the relevant authorities must be defined with sufficient clarity (see, in this connection, Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, § 67, and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V).

• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  They submitted that, according to the European Court's judgment in Société Colas Est and Others v. France (no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002-III), Article 8 also protected companies.

  In our case, however, even supposing that the entitlement to interfere may be more extensive where the business premises of a legal person are concerned (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 49, ECHR 2002-III), the tax authorities were given wholly unfettered discretion to copy the entire backup tape - without need of warrant or judicial authorisation - and we note that only a minor part of the information contained therein was relevant for the tax audit of B.L.H. The tax authorities were given broad powers to consult documents, including those of no relevance for tax audit purposes, and the decision to copy the server was linked to their discretion, without the need to provide reasons.

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 74336/01

  Rechtswidrige Durchsuchung einer Anwaltskanzlei zur Erlangung elektronisch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  The applicant companies relied on Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria (no. 74336/01, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV), where the search and seizure of electronic data in relation to a legal person had been found to constitute an interference with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence.

  In the criminal field, however, the Court's case-law surrounds such measures with a number of important safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness, and particularly "whether the search was based on a warrant issued by a judge and based on reasonable suspicion [and] whether the scope of the warrant was reasonably limited" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 37, and Wiser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, 16 October 2007, § 56).

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  In the light of the above, while it is true that no requirement of prior judicial authorisation applied in the instant case (compare Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 57, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 40, Series A no. 256-B; and Miailhe, cited above, § 38), the Court is satisfied that the interference with the applicant companies" rights to respect for correspondence and home which the contested section 4-10 (1) order entailed was subject to important limitations and was accompanied by effective and adequate safeguards against abuse (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 50, Series A no. 28; Leander, cited above, § 60; and Z, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  In so doing, the Court will take into account that the national authorities are accorded a certain margin of appreciation, the scope of which will depend on such factors as the nature and seriousness of the interests at stake and the gravity of the interference (see, for instance, Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, §§ 94 and 99, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 58, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  With regard to the legal basis, it should be noted from the outset that the requirement of accessibility and foreseeability is intended to ensure adequate protection against arbitrary interference and that, to this end, the scope and manner of exercise of the powers conferred on the relevant authorities must be defined with sufficient clarity (see, in this connection, Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, § 67, and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 11471/85

  CRÉMIEUX v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  In the light of the above, while it is true that no requirement of prior judicial authorisation applied in the instant case (compare Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 57, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 40, Series A no. 256-B; and Miailhe, cited above, § 38), the Court is satisfied that the interference with the applicant companies" rights to respect for correspondence and home which the contested section 4-10 (1) order entailed was subject to important limitations and was accompanied by effective and adequate safeguards against abuse (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 50, Series A no. 28; Leander, cited above, § 60; and Z, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  As to the requirement of foreseeability, while certainty was highly desirable, excessive rigidity should be avoided so that the law can keep pace with changing circumstances (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  The Court reiterates that, according to its well-established case-law, the words "in accordance with the law" require the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus be 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, among other authorities, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 62617/00

  Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte schützt private Nutzung des Internets
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

  GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

  HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04

  MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

• EuGH, 18.06.2015 - C-583/13

  Deutsche Bahn u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - …

  Es ist ferner darauf hinzuweisen, dass sich der in Art. 8 EMRK vorgesehene Schutz nach der Rechtsprechung des EGMR zwar auf bestimmte Geschäftsräume erstrecken kann, aber der EGMR gleichwohl entschieden hat, dass der öffentliche Eingriff im Fall beruflicher oder geschäftlicher Räume oder Tätigkeiten weiter gehen kann als in anderen Fällen (EGMR, Urteile vom 16. Dezember 1992, Niemietz/Deutschland, Serie A Nr. 251-B, und 14. März 2013, Bernh Larsen Holding AS u. a./Norwegen, Nr. 24117/08).
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 97/11

  DELTA PEKÁRNY A.S. c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Le fait qu'aucun de ces employés n'a été partie à la procédure interne ni n'a introduit une requête devant la Cour n'empêche pas celle-ci de prendre ces considérations en compte dans son appréciation générale du bien-fondé de la requête (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bernh Larsen Holding AS et autres c. Norvège, no 24117/08, § 90, 14 mars 2013).

  En l'espèce, il n'est pas contesté que l'inspection opérée dans les locaux professionnels de la société requérante s'analyse en une ingérence dans son droit au respect du « domicile'au sens de l'article 8, qui englobe également sa « correspondance ", voire, dans une certaine mesure, celle, de nature privée, de ses employés (voir paragraphe 65 ci-dessus et, mutatis mutandis, Bernh Larsen Holding AS et autres c. Norvège, no 24117/08, §§ 106 et 163, 14 mars 2013).

  Nous soulignons néanmoins que, lorsqu'il s'agit de mesures prises à l'encontre de telles personnes, par opposition aux particuliers, le droit d'ingérence des États peut aller plus loin (voir Niemietz c. Allemagne, 16 décembre 1992, §§ 30-31, série A no 251-B ; Société Colas Est et autres c. France, no 37971/97, §§ 40-41, 49, CEDH 2002-III) et que, de ce fait, leur marge d'appréciation est plus large (voir Bernh Larsen Holding AS et autres c. Norvège, no 24117/08, § 159 in fine, 14 mars 2013).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.02.2024 - C-623/22

  Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …

  82 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteil vom 14. März 2013, Bernh Larsen Holding AS u. a./Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2013:0314JUD002411708, §§ 123 bis 134), zu Art. 8 EMRK.

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10

  MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA

  In that context, the Court is obliged to note that under its well-established case-law, the "lawfulness" requirement set forth in other provisions of the Convention - including the expressions "in accordance with the law", "prescribed by law" and "provided for by law" appearing in the second paragraph of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention and in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and the expression "under national [emphasis added] or international law" contained in Article 7 - concerns not only the existence of a legal basis in domestic law but also a quality requirement inherent in the autonomous concept of lawfulness; this concept entails conditions regarding the accessibility and foreseeability of the "law", as well as the requirement to afford a measure of protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities with the rights safeguarded by the Convention (see, for example, Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, §§ 50 and 64, ECHR 2015, as regards Article 7; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 52-56, ECHR 2000-V; Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, no. 24117/08, §§ 123-24 and 134, 14 March 2013; and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 228-229, ECHR 2015, as regards Article 8; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 143, ECHR 2012, as regards Article 10; Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.
• EuG, 05.10.2020 - T-249/17

  Das Gericht erklärt die Nachprüfungsbeschlüsse der Kommission, die aufgrund des …

  Gleichwohl waren die Klägerinnen, wie sie zu Recht geltend machen, gezwungen, den Nachprüfungsbeschluss zu befolgen, der für seine Adressaten verbindlich ist und im Fall der Nichtbeachtung zur Verhängung einer Geldbuße führen kann (Art. 23 Abs. 1 Buchst. c bis e der Verordnung Nr. 1/2003) und der u. a. den Zugang zu allen ihren Räumlichkeiten sowie die Prüfung und das Kopieren ihrer Geschäftsunterlagen bedingt (Art. 20 Abs. 2 Buchst. a bis d der Verordnung Nr. 1/2003), was den Tatbestand des Eindringens in die Räumlichkeiten der überprüften Unternehmen erfüllt, so dass es gerechtfertigt ist, den von den Hausdurchsuchungen betroffenen Unternehmen die von der Rechtsprechung des EGMR anerkannten Rechte, die in den vorstehenden Rn. 50 und 51 angeführt werden, zu garantieren (…vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteil vom 6. September 2013, Deutsche Bahn u. a./Kommission, T-289/11, T-290/11 und T-521/11, EU:T:2013:404, Rn. 65; EGMR, 14. März 2013, Bernh Larsen Holding AS u. a./Norwegen, CE:ECHR:2013:0314JUD002411708, Rn. 106).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.07.2020 - C-245/19

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwältin Kokott müssen der Adressat, der betroffene …

  39 Urteile vom 17. Dezember 2015, WebMindLicenses (…C-419/14, EU:C:2015:832, Rn. 80), und vom 14. Februar 2008, Varec (…C-450/06, EU:C:2008:91, Rn. 48); in diesem Sinne auch Urteil vom 9. November 2010, Volker und Markus Schecke und Eifert (…C-92/09 und C-93/09, EU:C:2010:662, Rn. 87, in dem der Gerichtshof eine Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung im Hinblick auf Art. 7 der Charta vornahm); siehe auch EGMR, 16. Juni 2015 (Beschl.), Othymia Investments/Niederlande, CE:ECHR:2015:0616DEC007529210, § 37, 14. März 2013, Bernh Larsen Holding u. a./Norwegen, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0314JUD002411708, § 104, und 16. April 2002, Stes Colas u. a./Frankreich, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0416JUD003797197, § 41.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.02.2015 - C-583/13

  Deutsche Bahn u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Art. 20 Abs. 4 und Art. 28 der …

  18 - Vgl. z. B. Urteil Bernh Larsen Holding AS u. a./Norwegen, Nr. 24117/08, § 159 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung, ECHR 2013.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.07.2022 - C-682/20

  Les Mousquetaires und ITM Entreprises/ Kommission

  36 Vgl. EGMR, 14. März 2013, Bernh Larsen Holding As u. a./Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2013:0314JUD002411708, Rn. 104).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court is prepared to accept that there has been interference with the applicant company's rights under Article 8 (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 42, ECHR 2002-III, and Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, no. 24117/08, § 106, 14 March 2013).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 32600/12

  TRABAJO RUEDA c. ESPAGNE

  Il se réfère à l'arrêt Bernh Larsen Holding AS et autres c. Norvège (no 24117/08, 14 mars 2013) et précise que, dans cet arrêt, la Cour a conclu que l'accès au contenu d'un ordinateur personnel par les autorités fiscales sans autorisation judiciaire préalable aux fins d'obtention de données fiscales n'a pas emporté violation de l'article 8 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 2800/16

  JANSSEN DE JONG GROEP B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 2799/16

  SHIPS WASTE OIL COLLECTOR B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 28349/11

  YESIL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 3124/16

  BURANDO HOLDING B.v. AND PORT INVEST v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 50805/14

  NAUMENKO AND SIA RIX SHIPPING v. LATVIA