Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MANCEVSCHI v. MOLDOVA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  TAMOSIUS contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  The Court reiterates that the search of a lawyer's office has been regarded as interfering with "private life" and "correspondence" and, potentially, home, in the wider sense implied by the French text which uses the term "domicile" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005, which confirms that the search of a lawyer's business premises also interfered with his right to respect for his "home", and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 43, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  The Court reiterates that the search of a lawyer's office has been regarded as interfering with "private life" and "correspondence" and, potentially, home, in the wider sense implied by the French text which uses the term "domicile" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005, which confirms that the search of a lawyer's business premises also interfered with his right to respect for his "home", and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 43, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 74336/01

  Rechtswidrige Durchsuchung einer Anwaltskanzlei zur Erlangung elektronisch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  The Court reiterates that the search of a lawyer's office has been regarded as interfering with "private life" and "correspondence" and, potentially, home, in the wider sense implied by the French text which uses the term "domicile" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005, which confirms that the search of a lawyer's business premises also interfered with his right to respect for his "home", and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 43, ECHR 2007-...).

 
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

  CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  The criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining this latter issue have been, among others, the circumstances in which the search warrant was issued, in particular further evidence available at that time, the content and scope of the warrant, the manner in which the search was carried out, including the presence of independent observers during the search, and the extent of possible repercussions on the work and reputation of the person affected by the search (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005-IV; Chappell v. the United Kingdom, 30 March 1989, § 60, Series A no. 152-A; Camenzind v. Switzerland, 16 December 1997, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 57, Series A no. 256-A; Niemietz, cited above, § 37; and Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 44, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  The criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining this latter issue have been, among others, the circumstances in which the search warrant was issued, in particular further evidence available at that time, the content and scope of the warrant, the manner in which the search was carried out, including the presence of independent observers during the search, and the extent of possible repercussions on the work and reputation of the person affected by the search (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005-IV; Chappell v. the United Kingdom, 30 March 1989, § 60, Series A no. 152-A; Camenzind v. Switzerland, 16 December 1997, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 57, Series A no. 256-A; Niemietz, cited above, § 37; and Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 44, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  The Court reiterates that the search of a lawyer's office has been regarded as interfering with "private life" and "correspondence" and, potentially, home, in the wider sense implied by the French text which uses the term "domicile" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005, which confirms that the search of a lawyer's business premises also interfered with his right to respect for his "home", and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 43, ECHR 2007-...).

• EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 51693/13

  MODESTOU c. GRÈCE

  Les critères que la Cour prend en compte pour trancher cette dernière question sont notamment les circonstances dans lesquelles le mandat a été émis, en particulier les autres éléments de preuve disponibles à l'époque, le contenu et l'étendue du mandat, la façon dont la perquisition a été menée, y compris la présence ou non d'observateurs indépendants, et l'étendue des répercussions possibles sur le travail et la réputation de la personne visée par la perquisition (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Van Rossem c. Belgique, no 41872/98, §§ 42-43, 9 décembre 2004, Smirnov c. Russie, no71362/01, § 44, 7 juin 2007, Mancevschi c. Moldova, no 33066/04, § 45, 7 octobre 2008, Misan c. Russie, no 4261/04, § 55, 2 octobre 2014 et K.S. et M.S. c. Allemagne, no 33696/11, § 44, 6 octobre 2016).
• EGMR - 29895/16 (anhängig)

  EPIDAVR S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Has there been an interference with the applicant company's right to respect for home and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the search warrants? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the search warrants of 5 November 2015 contain sufficient and adequate reasoning justifying interference with the applicant company's commercial premises (see Mancevschi v. Moldova, no. 33066/04, §§ 45-48, 7 October 2008; Posevini v. Bulgaria, no. 63638/14, §§ 65-66, 19 January 2017)?.