Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUDCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - ...

• Anwaltsblatt

  EMRK Art. 8
  Jegliche Kommunikation mit Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden

• Anwaltsblatt

  EMRK Art. 8
  Jegliche Kommunikation mit Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• Burhoff online Blog (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• AnwBl 2018, 39
• AnwBl Online 2018, 45

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  The Court reiterates that, while Article 8 protects the confidentiality of all correspondence between individuals, it will afford "strengthened protection" to exchanges between lawyers and their clients, as lawyers would be unable to defend their clients if they were unable to guarantee that their exchanges would remain confidential (see Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 118, ECHR 2012, and R.E.v. the United Kingdom, no. 62498/11, § 131, 27 October 2015).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the validity of the applicant's allegations (see, among other authorities, Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 79, ECHR 2005-IV, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  It is further mindful that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32; Imbrioscia, cited above, § 38; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 30, Series A no. 76; and Salduz, cited above, § 55) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko, cited above, § 112; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  It is further mindful that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32; Imbrioscia, cited above, § 38; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 30, Series A no. 76; and Salduz, cited above, § 55) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko, cited above, § 112; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  It is further mindful that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32; Imbrioscia, cited above, § 38; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 30, Series A no. 76; and Salduz, cited above, § 55) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko, cited above, § 112; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  It is further mindful that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32; Imbrioscia, cited above, § 38; Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 30, Series A no. 76; and Salduz, cited above, § 55) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko, cited above, § 112; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  The wording "in accordance with the law" requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus meet quality requirements: it must be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 228, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment in all these respects, the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment in all these respects, the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).

• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  This is of particular relevance as the contemporaneous provision of reasons is a vital safeguard against abusive surveillance (see Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 88-101, 15 January 2015; Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 97-98, 7 November 2017; and Liblik and Others v. Estonia, nos. 173/15 and 5 others, §§ 137-41, 28 May 2019).

  Nor does the instruction lay down enough safeguards with respect to materials obtained as a result of accidentally intercepted lawyer-client communications (see, mutatis mutandis, R.E. v. the United Kingdom, no. 62498/11, §§ 138-41, 27 October 2015, and Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, § 107, 7 November 2017).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The authorities did not point to any aspects of his character or behaviour that would justify their finding that he presented such a risk (see Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, § 139, 7 November 2017, and Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 54, 15 May 2014).
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 61147/13

  TREVOGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The failure to comply with these requirements would lead the Court to conclude to a violation of the Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 93-100, 7 November 2017, in which it was established that the domestic courts failed to verify, when authorising covert surveillance in respect of the applicant, whether there was a "reasonable suspicion" against him and to apply the "necessity in a democratic society" and "proportionality" tests).

 
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 39087/15

  VOLODYA AVETISYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court has repeatedly declined to accept the validity of similar statements on the grounds that they cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable, given the lapse of time involved and the absence of any supporting documentary evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, § 119, 7 November 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison des conditions de détention dans des maisons d'arrêt russes (voir, par exemple, Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 janvier 2005, Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012, Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012, et Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison des conditions de détention dans des maisons d'arrêt (voir, par exemple, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 janvier 2005, Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012, Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012, Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, et Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017) ainsi qu'à raison des conditions de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 décembre 2010, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, et Radzhab Magomedov c. Russie, no 20933/08, §§ 59-62, 20 décembre 2016).
• EGMR - 20202/15 (anhängig)

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

  29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, 7 November 2017, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 56984/10

  MARGIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The failure to comply with these requirements has led the Court to conclude to a violation of the Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, § 45, 7 November 2017, cited above, §§ 93-100, in which it was established that the domestic courts failed to verify, when authorising covert surveillance in respect of the applicant, whether there was a "reasonable suspicion" against him and to apply the "necessity in a democratic society" and "proportionality" tests).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 31578/10

  VISLOBOKOV AND GORDON v. RUSSIA

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, 7 November 2017, Zubkov and Others, cited above, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, 7 November 2017, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award jointly to the two applicants the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims for just satisfaction.
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 9456/13

  BELEVITIN AND AGARKOV v. RUSSIA

  The failure to comply with these requirements has led the Court to conclude to a violation of the Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 93-100, 7 November 2017, in which it was established that the domestic courts failed to verify, when authorising covert surveillance in respect of the applicant, whether there was a "reasonable suspicion" against him and to apply the "necessity in a democratic society" and "proportionality" tests).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 78144/13

  YUDINTSEV AND SHISTEROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 41103/10

  DOVGIY AND SAGURA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 2331/14

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 5123/09

  GUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2940/17

  ION c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

  SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 20291/17 (anhängig)

  VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA and 25 other applications
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 20296/17

  PITKEVICH AND SAUSHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.05.2022 - 70913/12

  POROSHIN v. RUSSIA