Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  Article 13 requires that where an individual considers himself to have been prejudiced by a measure allegedly in breach of the Convention, he should have a remedy before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if appropriate, to obtain redress (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 64, Series A no. 28).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  For its part, the Court has accepted, in the context of "the interests of national security" and "public safety" and "the prevention of crime", that investigative methods may have to be used covertly (see, among other authorities, Klass, cited above, § 48; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 81, Series A no. 82; and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 66, Series A no. 116), even against persons who are not themselves objects of investigation or surveillance (see Greuter v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40045/98, 19 March 2002; and by implication, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI, and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  For its part, the Court has accepted, in the context of "the interests of national security" and "public safety" and "the prevention of crime", that investigative methods may have to be used covertly (see, among other authorities, Klass, cited above, § 48; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 81, Series A no. 82; and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 66, Series A no. 116), even against persons who are not themselves objects of investigation or surveillance (see Greuter v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40045/98, 19 March 2002; and by implication, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI, and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  For its part, the Court has accepted, in the context of "the interests of national security" and "public safety" and "the prevention of crime", that investigative methods may have to be used covertly (see, among other authorities, Klass, cited above, § 48; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 81, Series A no. 82; and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 66, Series A no. 116), even against persons who are not themselves objects of investigation or surveillance (see Greuter v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40045/98, 19 March 2002; and by implication, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI, and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  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, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  For its part, the Court has accepted, in the context of "the interests of national security" and "public safety" and "the prevention of crime", that investigative methods may have to be used covertly (see, among other authorities, Klass, cited above, § 48; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 81, Series A no. 82; and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 66, Series A no. 116), even against persons who are not themselves objects of investigation or surveillance (see Greuter v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40045/98, 19 March 2002; and by implication, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI, and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008).
• EuGH, 22.10.2013 - C-276/12

  Sabou - Richtlinie 77/799/EWG - Gegenseitige Amtshilfe zwischen den Behörden der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  In its judgment of 22 October 2013 (Jirí Sabou v Financní reditelství pro hlavní mesto Prahu (Case No. C-276/12), "the Sabou judgment"), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union held as follows:.
• EuGH, 18.12.2008 - C-349/07

  Sopropé - Zollkodex der Gemeinschaften - Grundsatz der Wahrung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  "38. The Court has previously ruled that observance of the rights of the defence is a general principle of European Union law which applies where the authorities are minded to adopt a measure which will adversely affect an individual (see [Case C-349/07 Sopropé [2008] ECR I-10369], paragraph 36).
• EuGH, 24.10.1996 - C-32/95

  Kommission / Lisrestal u.a.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  In accordance with that principle, the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests must therefore be placed in a position in which they can effectively make known their views as regards the information on which the authorities intend to base their decision (see, inter alia, C-32/95 P Commission v Lisrestal and Others [1996] ECR I-5373, paragraph 21, and Sopropé, paragraph 37).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  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, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 770/12

  RUKAVINA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 40045/98

  GREUTER v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EuGH, 06.10.2020 - C-245/19

  DFON

  Wie eine juristische Person, die im Besitz von Informationen ist, an die die zuständige nationale Behörde eine Anordnung zur Übermittlung dieser Informationen richtet, können sich diese Dritten auf den Schutz berufen, den jede natürliche oder juristische Person nach dem in Rn. 57 des vorliegenden Urteils angeführten allgemeinen Grundsatz des Unionsrechts gegen willkürliche oder unverhältnismäßige Eingriffe der öffentlichen Gewalt in ihrer Sphäre der privaten Betätigung genießt, auch wenn die Übermittlung von sie betreffenden Rechts-, Bank- oder Finanzinformationen oder ganz allgemein wirtschaftlichen Informationen an eine öffentliche Stelle in keiner Weise als den Kern dieser Betätigung berührend angesehen werden kann (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 16. Juni 2015, 0thymia Investments BV/Niederlande, CE:ECHR:2015:0616DEC007529210, § 37, 7. Juli 2015, M. N. u. a./San Marino, CE:ECHR:2015:0707JUD002800512, §§ 51 und 54, sowie 22. Dezember 2015, G.S.B./Schweiz, CE:ECHR:2015:1222JUD002860111, §§ 51 und 93).
• 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.

  43 EGMR, 16. Juni 2015 (Beschl.), Othymia Investments/Niederlande, CE:ECHR:2015:0616DEC007529210, § 44.

• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  TOPALLAJ v. ALBANIA

  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, amongst many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 208, ECHR 2012, and Othymia Investments BV v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75292/10, § 34, 16 June 2015).