Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MADSEN v. DENMARK

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 58341/00

  The Court reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law", within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law and that the law in question should be accessible to the person concerned - who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him - and compatible with the rule of law (see, inter alia, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 49, the Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27 and Camenzind v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 December 1997, § 37, reports 1997-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 58341/00

  The Court recalls that an interference with the exercise of an Article 8 right will not be compatible with Article 8 § 2 unless it is "in accordance with the law", has an aim or aims that is or are legitimate under that paragraph and is "necessary in a democratic society" for the aforesaid aim or aims (see the Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 43 and Pretty v. United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, 29 April 2002, § 68).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 58341/00

  The Court reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law", within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law and that the law in question should be accessible to the person concerned - who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him - and compatible with the rule of law (see, inter alia, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 49, the Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27 and Camenzind v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 December 1997, § 37, reports 1997-VIII).

• EGMR, 11.01.2006 - 52562/99

  SØRENSEN ET RASMUSSEN c. DANEMARK

  However it is far from being unusual that an individual seeking a job is "compelled" to accept requirements which are contrary to, for example, his personal views or interfere with his private or family life (see mutatis mutandis Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.) no. 42393/98, 15 February 2001 (requirement for a teacher not to wear a headscarf) and Madsen v. Denmark (dec.) no. 58341/00, 7 November 2002 (requirement to undergo random urine tests for alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances)).