Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WRETLUND v. SWEDEN

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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 46210/99

  The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, among other authorities, Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, p. 24, § 48).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 46210/99

  The Court recalls that an interference with the exercise of a right under Article 8 of the Convention 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, among other authorities, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 43, and Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, 29 April 2002, § 68).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 46210/99

  The Court reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" 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 or her - 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, and Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 46210/99

  The Court reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" 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 or her - 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, and Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 61496/08

  Überwachung privater Chatnachrichten des Arbeitnehmers durch den Arbeitgeber

  Thus, it is generally for the parties themselves to regulate a significant part of the content of their relations (see, mutatis mutandis, Wretlund v. Sweden (dec.), no. 46210/99, 9 March 2004, concerning the compatibility with Article 8 of the Convention of the obligation for the applicant, an employee at a nuclear plant, to undergo drug tests; with regard to trade-union action from the standpoint of Article 11, see Gustafsson v. Sweden, 25 April 1996, § 45, Reports 1996-II, and, mutatis mutandis, Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, §§ 140-46, ECHR 2008, for the specific case of civil servants).