Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.W. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  S.W. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ-RR 2022, 677

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 87/18

  In this regard, the notion of "private life" does not exclude in principle activities of a professional or business nature since it is in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant opportunity to develop relationships with the outside world (see Denisov, cited above, § 100; Barbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, § 71, 5 September 2017, § 71; and Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 87/18

  In order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and must have been carried out in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see inter alia, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 112, 25 September 2018; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 137, ECHR 2015; and Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 76, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 87/18

  There is therefore no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 155-156, ECHR 2014 with further references).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.2015 - 41107/10

  Y. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 87/18

  In the specific context of court proceedings, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the presiding judge to ensure that the Article 8 rights of persons giving evidence are adequately protected (Y. v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, § 109, ECHR 2015 (extracts).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 25527/13

  VICENT DEL CAMPO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 87/18

  Consequently, the Court has accepted that the adverse portrayal of an applicant's conduct in an authoritative judicial ruling could, by the way it stigmatised him, have a major impact on his personal and professional situation, as well as his honour and reputation (Vicent Del Campo v. Spain, no. 25527/13, § 48, 6 November 2018).
• EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 25322/12

  PETRIE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 87/18

  A person's right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as part of the right to respect for private life, since a person's reputation is part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XII, and Petrie v. Italy, no. 25322/12, § 39, 18 May 2017).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 35637/04

  ARNOLDI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 87/18

  The Court has stressed that the question of the applicability of Article 6 cannot depend on the recognition of the formal status of "party" by national law (see Arnoldi v. Italy, no. 35637/04, § 28, 7 December 2017).

• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 3195/21

  TONNA AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  87/18, 28 May 2019, and Ian Falzon v. Attorney General et, rik.
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 56578/11

  A.A.K. c. TÜRKIYE

  Maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits de la cause (voir, Radomilja et autres c. Croatie [GC], nos 37685/10 et 22768/12, § 126, 20 mars 2018, S.M. c. Croatie [GC], no 60561/14, § 243, 25 juin 2020, et plus récemment, Telek et autres c. Türkiye, nos 66763/17 et 2 autres, § 76, 21 mars 2023, et Calvi et C.G. c. Italie, no 46412/21, § 73, 6 juillet 2023), la Cour estime donc que, dans le cas présent, les griefs soulevés au regard des articles 6 § 1 et/ou 13 se trouvent absorbés par ceux tirés de l'article 8, sous son volet procédural (voir, par exemple, Kutzner c. Allemagne, no 46544/99, §§ 56 et 57, CEDH 2002 I, Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, § 151, 27 septembre 2011, Anghel c. Italie, no 5968/09, § 69, 25 juin 2013, G.B. c. Lituanie, no 36137/13, § 113, 19 janvier 2016, et S.W. c. Royaume-Uni, no 87/18, § 78, 22 juin 2021), lequel couvre, non seulement, les procédures judiciaires, mais aussi les processus administratifs en jeu (paragraphe 65 ci-dessous).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 4952/21

  N.V. AND C.C. v. MALTA

  The Court has stressed that the question of the applicability of Article 6 cannot depend on the recognition of the formal status of "party" by national law (see Arnoldi v. Italy, no. 35637/04, § 28, 7 December 2017, and S.W. v. the United Kingdom, no. 87/18, § 78, 22 June 2021).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 4465/18

  MOLCHANOVA v. UKRAINE

  At the same time, the Court observes that the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb cannot depend on the applicant's formal recognition as a "party" under national law (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, no. 87/18, § 78, 22 June 2021).