Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTANTIN 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);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  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, 20.12.2016 - 20933/08

  RADZHAB MAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  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, cited above, § 59; 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 - 59589/10

  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, cited above, § 59; 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, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  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, cited above, § 59; 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, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  At the same time, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157 and 158, ECHR 2000-XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 96, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  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, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03

  KEEGAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  The Court has already found on a number of occasions, in the context of Article 8, that a judicial review remedy which was incapable of examining whether the contested interference answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the aims pursued did not meet the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, §§ 135-39, ECHR 1999-VI; Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 105-07, ECHR 2003-I; and Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  Whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 43, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  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, cited above, § 59; 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 - 59589/10

  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, cited above, § 59; 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 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The judge is not required to just review the need to pursue the surveillance, but must also validate the surveillance which has already taken place, as well as its results (contrast Roman Zakharov, cited above, § 266, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, §§ 51-52, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  SIGURÐUR EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, 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 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs 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

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see, among other authorities, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in a courtroom during criminal proceedings, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 139-49 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, regarding length and speediness of review of pre-trial detention, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, §§ 53-64, 2 October 2014, related to a search of the applicant's home conducted in the absence of safeguards, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, §§ 23-36, 7 November 2017, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the secret surveillance).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 32706/15

  VINOKUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, concerning conditions of detention in remand prisons; Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017, concerning secret surveillance and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 85-98, 2 March 2006, concerning excessive length of criminal proceedings; and Krestovskiy v. Russia, no. 14040/03, 28 October 2010, concerning the lack of a public hearing).
• 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 - 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

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see, among other authorities, Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about covert surveillance).
• 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

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, §§ 23-36,7 November 2017).
• 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
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 2331/14

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

  GUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 20291/17 (anhängig)

  VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA and 25 other applications
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 12549/15

  SYROVEZHKIN AND VORONTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 30296/17

  FEDONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 32711/13

  ANDREYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.05.2022 - 70913/12

  POROSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53404/18

  MUKHAMETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA