Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POCIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  Likewise, the Court observes, with reference to its case-law, that when information about a person's life, including, inter alia, his criminal record, is systematically collected and stored in a file held by agents of the State, this information falls within the scope of "private life" for the purposes of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000-V; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 2000-II; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  Likewise, the Court observes, with reference to its case-law, that when information about a person's life, including, inter alia, his criminal record, is systematically collected and stored in a file held by agents of the State, this information falls within the scope of "private life" for the purposes of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000-V; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 2000-II; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  The Court cannot rule out the possibility, albeit theoretical, that the listing of the applicant's name in the operational records file could have resulted in restrictions on him entering certain private-sector professions or otherwise earning a living, thereby again affecting his private life (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, §§ 47-50, ECHR 2004-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  As regards the first of the above-mentioned criteria, that the dispute must concern a right which arguably exists under national law, it should further be reiterated that Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for those civil rights in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create through the interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  Likewise, the Court observes, with reference to its case-law, that when information about a person's life, including, inter alia, his criminal record, is systematically collected and stored in a file held by agents of the State, this information falls within the scope of "private life" for the purposes of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000-V; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 2000-II; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90

  KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  In this connection the Court reiterates that, according to the principles laid down in its case-law (see, for instance, Kerojärvi v. Finland, 19 July 1995, § 32, Series A no. 322; Gülmez v. Turkey, no. 16330/02, § 28, 20 May 2008), it must first ascertain whether there was a dispute ("contestation") over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective of whether they are also protected under the Convention.
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98

  KRESS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the principle of equality of arms - one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing - requires each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place the litigant at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the opponent (see, among many other authorities, Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  There was a dispute before the courts as to whether the two 2014 decisions of the Commission relating to the applicant were lawful, and those decisions directly affected his right to respect for his private life, which is protected under both Article 32 § 1 of the Bulgarian Constitution - a provision which has, albeit in different contexts, been given direct effect in civil litigation before the Bulgarian courts (see paragraphs 28 and 29 above) - and Article 8 of the Convention, which is directly applicable in Bulgarian law (see paragraph 27 above, and compare with Ravon and Others v. France, no. 18497/03, § 24 in fine, 21 February 2008, and Pocius v. Lithuania, no. 35601/04, § 42, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 33197/09

  ALEXANDRE c. PORTUGAL

  Elle constate toutefois une évolution de sa jurisprudence quant à l'application de l'article 6 à des affaires ne portant pas à première vue sur un droit civil mais pouvant avoir des répercussions directes et importantes sur un droit de caractère privé d'un individu (Enea c. Italie [GC], no 74912/01, § 106, CEDH 2009 ; Stegarescu et Bahrin c. Portugal, no 46194/06, § 37, 6 avril 2010 ; Pocius c. Lituanie, no 35601/04, § 43, 6 juillet 2010).
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 29278/16

  PREBIL v. SLOVENIA

  Additionally, the Court notes that the findings of the Ljubljana District Court (see paragraph 12 above) could arguably have had repercussions for the applicant's reputation, particularly in his professional life (see, mutatis mutandis, Pocius v. Lithuania, no. 35601/04, §§ 41 and 43, 6 July 2010, and Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 27 and 29, Series A no. 212-A).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 14833/18

  ADOMAITIS v. LITHUANIA

  The relevant case-law of the Court has been set out in Draksas v. Lithuania (no. 36662/04, § 67, 31 July 2012); Pocius v. Lithuania (no. 35601/04, §§ 51 and 52, 6 July 2010); see also, more recently, Prebil v. Slovenia (no. 29278/16, § 42, 19 March 2019, and, mutatis mutandis, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7512/18

  STARKEVIC v. LITHUANIA

  The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see Terrazzoni v. France, no. 33242/12, § 43, 29 June 2017, and Pocius v. Lithuania, no. 35601/04, § 42, 6 July 2010).