Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOLOKHY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 23543/02

  The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 23543/02

  The Court reiterates that powers of secret surveillance of citizens in the course of criminal investigations are tolerable under the Convention only in so far as strictly necessary (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 23543/02

  The Court has stressed the importance of this concept with regard to secret surveillance in the following terms (see the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 32, § 67, reiterated in Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-II):.

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  In such a situation the six-month period could be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see, among other authorities, Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey, (dec.) no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; Volokhy v. Ukraine, no. 23543/02, § 37, 2 November 2006; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 33015/06

  VOSKOBOYNIKOV v. UKRAINE

  Further relevant provisions are summarised in the judgment of Volokhy v. Ukraine (no. 23543/02, §§ 27 and 28, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  ZOSYMOV v. UKRAINE

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 157, ECHR 2009; Volokhy v. Ukraine, no. 23543/02, § 37, 2 November 2006; and Ratushna v. Ukraine, no. 17318/06, § 62, 2 December 2010).