Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAMOSIUS contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAMOSIUS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  The scrutiny given by a judge, even in an ex parte procedure, is nonetheless an important safeguard against abuse (see, e.g., the Funke v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p. 25, § 57; see also the Chappell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, p. 25, §§ 59-61, concerning the grant ex parte of an Anton Piller order).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

  CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  The scrutiny given by a judge, even in an ex parte procedure, is nonetheless an important safeguard against abuse (see, e.g., the Funke v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p. 25, § 57; see also the Chappell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, p. 25, §§ 59-61, concerning the grant ex parte of an Anton Piller order).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  The Court stresses that legal professionals are not immune from searches, seizures, wiretapping, etc. (see, in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, Mulders v. the Netherlands (no. 23231/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995; and B.R. v Germany, no. 26722/95, Commission decision of 23 October 1997; see also Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 74336/01

  Rechtswidrige Durchsuchung einer Anwaltskanzlei zur Erlangung elektronisch …

  The Court reiterates that the search of a lawyer's office has been regarded as interfering with "private life" and "correspondence" and, potentially, home, in the wider sense implied by the French text which uses the term "domicile" (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-35, §§ 29-33, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finnland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005, which confirms that the search of a lawyer's business premises also interfered with his right to respect for his "home").
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including documents and electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; 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-...).

  The Court accepts that the domestic judge, while examining the request, was satisfied that there was reasonable ground for suspecting that the commission of a fraud had occurred and that evidence might be found at the premises to be searched (see Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 30457/06

  Recht auf Achtung der Korrespondenz (Kommunikation) insbesondere bei …

  Elements taken into consideration are, in particular, whether the search was based on a warrant issued by a judge and based on reasonable suspicion; whether the scope of the warrant was reasonably limited; and - where the search of a lawyer's office was concerned - whether the search was carried out in the presence of an independent observer in order to ensure that materials subject to professional secrecy were not removed (see also Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 37, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, cited above, § 57).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 69436/10

  BRITO FERRINHO BEXIGA VILLA-NOVA c. PORTUGAL

  À cet égard, elle renvoie à sa jurisprudence relative aux perquisitions dans les cabinets d'avocats (voir entre autres, mutatis mutandis, Niemietz, précité, § 37, Tamosius c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62002/00, CEDH 2002-VIII et Xavier da Silveira, précité, § 40).
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

  ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  En revanche, la Cour, rappelant qu'aucune infraction n'était reprochée aux requérants, se doit de constater que les différents mandats de perquisition étaient rédigés en termes larges (Niemietz c. Allemagne, précité, § 37 ; Roemen et Schmit c. Luxembourg, précité, § 70 ; a contrario, Keslassy c. France (déc.), no 51578/99, CEDH 2002-I, et Tamosius c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62002/00, CEDH 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including, as in the present case, electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-35, §§ 29-33; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; 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-...).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  KOLESNICHENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that during the search there was no safeguard in place against interference with professional secrecy, such as, for example, a prohibition on removing documents covered by lawyer-client privilege or supervision of the search by an independent observer capable of identifying, independently of the investigation team, which documents were covered by legal professional privilege (see Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 89, 27 September 2005, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

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

  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, 07.06.2007 - 71362/01

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  Comme cela a déjà été relevé, aucune garantie n'avait été prévue contre les atteintes au secret professionnel: ni interdiction de saisir les documents couverts par la confidentialité des communications entre les avocats et leurs clients, ni surveillance de la perquisition par un observateur indépendant capable d'identifier, indépendamment de l'équipe d'enquête, les documents couverts par le secret professionnel de l'avocat (voir Sallinen et autres c. Finlande, no 50882/99, § 89, 27 septembre 2005, et Tamosius c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62002/00, CEDH 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 41872/98

  VAN ROSSEM c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05

  BAGIYEVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 30958/13

  LEOTSAKOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  MANCEVSCHI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 2204/11

  ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 5678/06

  YUDITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 7152/03

  KAPR c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 71064/12

  MOCULSKIS v. LATVIA