Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,11437
EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05 (https://dejure.org/2014,11437)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.05.2014 - 9208/05 (https://dejure.org/2014,11437)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Mai 2014 - 9208/05 (https://dejure.org/2014,11437)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,11437) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

    KARNER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    The Court observes that in various cases where an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members who expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before it (see, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

    Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    The Court cannot question the national courts" interpretation except in the event of flagrant non-observance of, or arbitrariness in the application of, the domestic legislation in question (see, inter alia, Kruslin, cited above, § 29; Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998-II; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; and, mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, 29 June 2006, § 90; Dryzek v. Poland (dec.), no. 12285/09, 20 March 2012, § 50; and Draksas v. Lithuania, no. 36662/04, § 56, 31 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

    ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    As to the third requirement, the law's foreseeability, in its case-law on secret measures of surveillance, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards regarding the elements that should be set out in statute law in order to avoid abuses of power: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped; a limit on the duration of telephone tapping; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed (see, inter alia, Huvig, cited above, § 34; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-V; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 76, ECHR 2000-II; Prado Bugallo v. Spain, no. 58496/00, § 30, 18 February 2003; Weber and Saravia (dec.), cited above, § 95; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 75-77, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 62, 1 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

    LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    As to the third requirement, the law's foreseeability, in its case-law on secret measures of surveillance, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards regarding the elements that should be set out in statute law in order to avoid abuses of power: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped; a limit on the duration of telephone tapping; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed (see, inter alia, Huvig, cited above, § 34; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-V; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 76, ECHR 2000-II; Prado Bugallo v. Spain, no. 58496/00, § 30, 18 February 2003; Weber and Saravia (dec.), cited above, § 95; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 75-77, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 62, 1 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 12285/09

    DRYZEK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    The Court cannot question the national courts" interpretation except in the event of flagrant non-observance of, or arbitrariness in the application of, the domestic legislation in question (see, inter alia, Kruslin, cited above, § 29; Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998-II; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; and, mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, 29 June 2006, § 90; Dryzek v. Poland (dec.), no. 12285/09, 20 March 2012, § 50; and Draksas v. Lithuania, no. 36662/04, § 56, 31 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

    DALBAN v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    The Court observes that in various cases where an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members who expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before it (see, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI).
  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

    HUVIG c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    The Court reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 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, among other authorities, Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, § 26, Series A no. 176-B, and Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 27, Series A no. 176-A).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

    AMANN c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    As to the third requirement, the law's foreseeability, in its case-law on secret measures of surveillance, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards regarding the elements that should be set out in statute law in order to avoid abuses of power: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped; a limit on the duration of telephone tapping; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed (see, inter alia, Huvig, cited above, § 34; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-V; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 76, ECHR 2000-II; Prado Bugallo v. Spain, no. 58496/00, § 30, 18 February 2003; Weber and Saravia (dec.), cited above, § 95; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 75-77, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 62, 1 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
    The Court reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 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, among other authorities, Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, § 26, Series A no. 176-B, and Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 27, Series A no. 176-A).
  • EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 27473/06

    MUSTAFA SEZGIN TANRIKULU v. TURKEY

    v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I; Goranova-Karaeneva, cited above, § 46; and Lachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 9208/05, 6 May 2014).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht