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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• 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, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, 24.04.2008 - 1365/07

  Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Ausweisung, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  The phrase thus implies, inter alia, that domestic law must be sufficiently foreseeable in its terms to give individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which the authorities are entitled to resort to measures affecting their rights under the Convention (see C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1365/07, § 39, 24 April 2008).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  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, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  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, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  Most significantly, the search in Mr Drel's office was not accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards, for example a court warrant, as required by the Advocacy Act and confirmed by the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 398 and 399 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Aleksanyan, cited above, § 214; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 64, 5 July 2012; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 60010/08

  SAGAN c. UKRAINE

  La Cour rappelle que les mots « prévue par la loi'veulent d'abord que la mesure contestée ait une base en droit interne (voir, par exemple, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Van Rossem c. Belgique, no 41872/98, § 38, 9 décembre 2004, et Golovan c. Ukraine, no 41716/06, § 56, 5 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 33015/06

  VOSKOBOYNIKOV v. UKRAINE

  Neither did they refer to any other plausible reason to justify the deviation from those requirements of domestic law (see, for a comparable situation, Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, §§ 10, 58 and 59, 5 July 2012).