Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLOVAN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home Respect for private life) Violation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 64209/01

  PEEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  As regards the first applicant's attempts to have the officers prosecuted, the Court does not consider that in the circumstances of the instant case the application of criminal-law sanctions was indispensable for the appropriate protection of the first applicant's rights against unlawful search and seizure (see also Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, § 70, 26 July 2007, and Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, no. 37315/03, § 127, 29 May 2008).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  The Court has held that such an observer should have requisite legal qualification in order to effectively participate in the procedure (see, for example, Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 43, and Kolesnichenko v. Russia, no. 19856/04, § 34, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  In particular, at that stage of the domestic proceedings a claimant does not have appropriate access to the case file and that significantly undermines the effectiveness of the procedure (see, mutatis mutandis, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 71-73, 24 June 2010).

• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03

  KEEGAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  Article 13 requires an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 40, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  BETAYEV AND BETAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  As regards the first applicant's attempts to have the officers prosecuted, the Court does not consider that in the circumstances of the instant case the application of criminal-law sanctions was indispensable for the appropriate protection of the first applicant's rights against unlawful search and seizure (see also Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, § 70, 26 July 2007, and Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, no. 37315/03, § 127, 29 May 2008).
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 12451/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  The Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the case of Vladimir Polishchuk and Svetlana Polishchuk v. Ukraine (no. 12451/04, §§ 54 and 55, 30 September 2010) in which a civil claim on account of an unlawful search had not been considered by the domestic courts mainly for the reason that the claimant had not been directly involved in the relevant criminal proceedings.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  The search of a lawyer's office may prompt the Court to consider the matter from the standpoint of interference with "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; 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-IV).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  What is required by way of safeguard will depend, to some extent at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 20999/04

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  Accordingly, the measures had a serious impact on the first applicant's private life in the meaning of the Convention (see Özpınar v. Turkey, no. 20999/04, §§ 45 and 46, 19 October 2010, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  The compatibility of a search warrant with these requirements has always been a matter of concern for the Court (see, among many other authorities, Niemietz, cited above, § 37; Van Rossem v. Belgium, no. 41872/98, § 45, 9 December 2004; Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 47, 7 June 2007; Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, §§ 40 and 41, 22 May 2008; and Mancevschi v. Moldova, no. 33066/04, §§ 47 and 48, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 1365/07

  Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Ausweisung, …
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  ELÇI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 43757/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  MANCEVSCHI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45027/98

  NARINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 45827/07

  JACQUIER c. FRANCE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 459/18

  SABER v. NORWAY

  Whenever a complaint concerning such an alleged violation has been submitted by a lawyer, the Court has clearly approached it from the standpoint of Article 8 (see, among many other authorities, Petri Sallinen and others v. Finland (no. 50882/99, 27 September 2005); Kruglov and others v. Russia (nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020); and Golovan v. Ukraine (no. 41716/06, 5 July 2012)).

  [10] Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 53, 5 July 2012.

• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

  It should only be noted that such proceedings - which the applicants did not attempt to trigger at any point -could have enabled the establishment of the facts and thus facilitated the use of the above-mentioned civil-law remedy, even if they had not resulted in individual criminal or disciplinary liability (see, mutatis mutandis, Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, §§ 74 and 79, 5 July 2012).
• EGMR, 18.12.2025 - 37514/20

  CERNÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  It must be sufficiently clear in its terms to give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances and conditions under which public authorities are empowered to resort to any measures (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 57, 5 July 2012).

• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 698/19

  SÄRGAVA v. ESTONIA

  Domestic law must further be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, and the person affected must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him or her (see Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, § 332, 25 May 2021; Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, § 62, 17 May 2018; see also Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 56, 5 July 2012).
• EGMR, 03.04.2025 - 57748/21

  KULÁK v. SLOVAKIA

  Rn. 73 According to the Court's well-established case-law, searches and seizures carried out on the premises of a lawyer's office constitute an interference with the rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see Niemetz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 64, ECHR 2003-IV; Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 43, ECHR 2007; André and Another v. France, no. 18603/03, § 37, 24 July 2008; Xavier Da Silveira v. France, no. 43757/05, § 32, 21 January 2010; Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 33, 15 February 2011; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 51, 5 July 2012; Močuļskis v. Latvia, no. 71064/12, §§ 40-41, 17 December 2020; and Särgava v. Estonia, no. 698/19, § 85, 16 November 2021).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 47889/08

  VOYKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  As regards the third and fourth applicants' attempts to have the officers prosecuted, the Court does not consider that in the circumstances of the instant case the application of criminal-law sanctions was indispensable for the appropriate protection of the applicants' rights against unlawful searches (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 72, 5 July 2012).
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, the prosecution of police officers, even if successful, was possible only in respect of their own actions and could not have led to a substantive review of the lawfulness of the judicial authorisation for the search (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 72, 5 July 2012, and Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, § 70, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56697/09

  SKOROKHODOV v. UKRAINE

  However, the Court has held in various contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy because the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure at a point where victims have no formal status, thus excluding their effective participation in the procedure (see Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-312, 1 July 2010; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 75, 5 July 2012; and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 42753/14

  KADURA AND SMALIY v. UKRAINE

  An encroachment on professional secrecy of lawyers may have repercussions for the proper administration of justice and hence for the rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 62, 5 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 3082/06

  [ENG]

  The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, mutatis mutandis, Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 51, 5 July 2012, and the case-law cited there).
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 31175/14

  REZNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 60010/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 59731/09

  SAVENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 33868/22 (anhängig)

  STASI v. ITALY
• EGMR - 18981/17 (anhängig)

  CHEREDNYCHENKO v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 47821/10

  DUBOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 16908/09

  LISOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  PETRENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 9855/23 (anhängig)

  DESANTIS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 13837/09

  A.N. v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 33015/06

  VOSKOBOYNIKOV v. UKRAINE