Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOLESNICHENKO v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2010, 2109

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  The Court has consistently interpreted the notion of "home" in Article 8 § 1 as covering both private individuals" homes and professional persons" offices (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, ECHR 2005-IV, and Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, §§ 29-31).
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  The Court has consistently interpreted the notion of "home" in Article 8 § 1 as covering both private individuals" homes and professional persons" offices (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, ECHR 2005-IV, and Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, §§ 29-31).
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  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).
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  Therefore the searching of lawyers" premises should be subject to especially strict scrutiny (see Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 669, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  TAMOSIUS contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  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, 03.12.2019 - 14704/12

  KIRDÖK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que les mesures imposant aux avocats un certain nombre d'obligations susceptibles de concerner les relations avec leurs clients, par exemple dans le cadre de la lutte contre les infractions pénales, doivent être impérativement encadrées d'une façon stricte, les avocats occupant une situation centrale dans l'administration de la justice (voir, inter alia, Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, § 43, 15 février 2011, et Kolesnichenko c. Russie, no 19856/04, § 31, 9 avril 2009).
• LG Landshut, 31.08.2011 - 6 Qs 92/11

  Hinzuziehung von Zeugen bei der Durchsuchung

  Genausowenig tut dies die vom Verteidiger in Anspruch genommene Entscheidung des EMRG (Judgement/Urteil vom 09.04.2009, No. 19856/04 Kolesnichenko v. Russia, abgekürzt in deutscher Sprache abgedruckt in NJW 2010, 2109 ff).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12

  AVAZ ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, search orders have to be drafted, as far as practicable, in a manner calculated to keep their impact within reasonable bounds (see Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, § 41, 22 May 2008, and Kolesnichenko v. Russia, no. 19856/04, § 33, 9 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 28349/11

  YESIL v. TURKEY

  The notion of "home" in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention encompasses a private individual's home (see Kolesnichenko v. Russia, no. 19856/04, § 29, 9 April 2009, and Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, ECHR 2005-IV), and Contracting States may empower their authorities to use measures such as home searches to establish physical evidence of certain offences, provided that their relevant legislation and practice offer individuals "adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse" (see H.M. v. Turkey, no. 34494/97, § 25, 8 August 2006).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 69762/12

  BUDAK v. TURKEY

  The Court notes at the outset that the notion of "home" in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention encompasses a private individual's home (see Kolesnichenko v. Russia, no. 19856/04, § 29, 9 April 2009, and Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 30958/13

  LEOTSAKOS c. GRÈCE

  La Cour doit enfin prendre en considération l'étendue des répercussions possibles sur le travail et la réputation de la personne visée par la perquisition (Camenzind c. Suisse, arrêt du 16 décembre 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VIII, § 45 ; Buck c. Allemagne, no 41604/98, § 45, CEDH 2005-IV; Smirnov c. Russie, no 71362/01, § 44, CEDH 2007 ; Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, précité, § 57 ; Iliya Stefanov, précité, § 38 ; Aleksanyan c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 214, 22 décembre 2008 ; Kolesnichenko c. Russie, no 19856/04, § 31, 9 avril 2009 ; Golovan c. Ukraine, n o41716/06, § 62, 5 juillet 2012).