Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZOSYMOV v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZOSYMOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 12451/04

  VLADIMIR POLISHCHUK AND SVETLANA POLISHCHUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  If no remedies are available or if those available are judged to be ineffective, the six-month period in principle runs from the date of the act complained of (see, among other authorities, Vladimir Polishchuk and Svetlana Polishchuk v. Ukraine, no. 12451/04, § 38, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  The next question is whether the interference complained of was justified under Article 8 § 2. In this connection, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 8 § 2, the interference must, among other things, be "in accordance with the law"; that is, it should have some basis in domestic law and be compatible with the rule of law (see, among other authorities, Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008, and Belousov, cited above, § 104).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  The Court observes that Article 13 has been consistently interpreted in its case-law as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, as a classic reference, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35; and Eckle, cited above).
• EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

  KOTIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  In various contexts of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has emphasised that measures affecting human rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent body competent to review in a timely fashion the reasons for the decision and the relevant evidence (see, as a recent authority, Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 68, 5 March 2015).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 17318/06

  RATUSHNA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  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).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  It considers that whatever was the domestic qualification of the disputed action, for the purposes of the Convention it amounted to "interference" with the applicant's right to respect for his home (see, in particular, Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 30, Series A no. 251-B; and Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, no. 11901/02, § 47, 29 June 2006 as regards the applicability of Article 8 to searches of non-residential premises and, mutatis mutandis, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 102 and 105-107, 7 November 2013 classifying an "inspection" under domestic law as interference within the meaning of Article 8).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 22429/05

  KOVAL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  The requirement of lawfulness for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, like for the purposes of Article 8 discussed above, presupposes compliance with the relevant provisions of domestic law and compatibility with the rule of law, which includes freedom from arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, §§ 55-56, 7 June 2007, and Koval and Others v. Ukraine, no. 22429/05, § 125, 15 November 2012).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 23543/02

  VOLOKHY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  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).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  The Court also notes that the above-mentioned proceedings could potentially lead to the revocation of the decision to institute criminal proceedings, in which the applicant considered himself to be a de facto suspect, and acknowledgment that his rights had been breached, which is an essential element of redress within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 83 and 88, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

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

• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 28349/11

  YESIL v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that both the initial and the actual search of the applicant's house constituted interferences with his right to respect for his private life and home (see Zosymov v. Ukraine, no. 4322/06, § 59, 7 July 2016, and Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5201/11, § 171, ECHR 2015).