Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NARINEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 45027/98
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45027/98

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45027/98

  The Court must therefore examine whether this interference was in conformity with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 8, namely whether it was "in accordance with the law", pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, 24.7.2001, § 128, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45027/98

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45027/98

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26, respectively).

• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  BUZESCU v. ROMANIA

  It follows that, in accordance with its case-law, it cannot make an award under this head in respect of the hours the applicant himself spent working on the case, as this time does not represent monetary costs actually incurred by him (see Robins v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1997, Reports 1997-V, p. 1812, § 44, and Narinen v. Finland, no. 45027/98, § 50, 1 June 2004).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 11932/02

  MIKHAYLYUK AND PETROV v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that the opening of a letter is sufficient in itself to disclose an interference with an applicant's right to respect for his correspondence (see Narinen v. Finland, no. 45027/98, § 32, 1 June 2004).