Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life) ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (15) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
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, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
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, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98
P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
- EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97
Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016). - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
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, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11
DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016). - EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 35285/08
IRFAN GÜZEL c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016). - EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 20933/08
RADZHAB MAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05
Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
- EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 61147/13
TREVOGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15. 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, Dudchenko, both cited above, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. - EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 8860/13
GÜRBÜZ ET BAYAR c. TURQUIE
En ce qui concerne le premier point, nous rappelons qu'en vertu du principe de subsidiarité, il appartient d'abord aux autorités nationales d'examiner conformément aux critères développés dans la jurisprudence de la Cour les allégations de violation de la Convention portées devant elles (voir, par exemple, Terentyev c. Russie, no 25147/09, 26 janvier 2017, Moskalev c. Russie, no 44045/05, 7 novembre 2017, ou encore Ögrü et autres c. Turquie, no 60087/10, 19 décembre 2017). - EGMR - 20202/15 (anhängig)
IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
- EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 56813/10
SEMYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Akhlyustin, cited above; Zubkov and Others, cited above; Dudchenko, cited above; 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 the sums indicated in the appended table. - EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 56984/10
MARGIYEV AND OTHERS 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, cited above, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. - 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 - 78144/13
YUDINTSEV AND SHISTEROV 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, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. - EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 9456/13
BELEVITIN AND AGARKOV 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, cited above; 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 the sums indicated in the appended table. - EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 41103/10
DOVGIY AND SAGURA 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, cited above, 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 each of the applicants the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims for just satisfaction. - EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 2331/14
ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
In the leading cases of Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009, 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 has already found a violation in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case. - EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 5123/09
GUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 20291/17 (anhängig)
VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA and 25 other applications
- EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 32711/13
ANDREYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.05.2022 - 70913/12
POROSHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 50495/08
ALTINTAS c. TURQUIE