Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 06.01.2004 - 15848/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,47180) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CRONIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2004 - 15848/03
The Court does not consider that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 raises any issues which require separate consideration from the complaint under Article 8. The Court further recalls that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). - EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2004 - 15848/03
The notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued; in determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will take into account the margin of appreciation to be afforded to the Contracting States (Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, pp. - EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84
FUNKE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2004 - 15848/03
Where States consider it necessary to resort to measures such as searches of residential premises in order to obtain evidence of offences the Court will assess whether the reasons adduced to justify such measures were relevant and sufficient and whether the proportionality principle has been adhered to (see Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88
NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2004 - 15848/03
The Court considers, on the basis of its case-law, that the search of the applicant's home clearly involved an interference with his Article 8 rights (see, for example, Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A, no. 152-A; Keslassy v. France, (dec.), no. 51578/99, 8 January 2002).