Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 18667/11

  In doing so, the Constitutional Court cited the Court's case-law, such as Rotaru v. Romania [GC] (no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V); Klass and Others v. Germany (6 September 1978, Series A no. 28); Kruslin v. France (24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A); Malone; and Copland (both cited above).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 18667/11

  It also found that the provider's clients had no means of establishing if any measures were in place or had been applied in the past in respect of them, nor did they have any "effective control" at their disposal, which also represented a violation of Article 8. The court cited Niemietz v. Germany (16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B); Halford v. the United Kingdom (25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III); Lambert v. France (24 August 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V); and Malone (cited above).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

  GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 18667/11

  The court held that, even if the police action had been lawful, it did not meet the criterion of necessity in Article 8 § 2. It found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and relied on the Court's case-law, notably Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), and Niemietz, Copland, and Halford (all three cited above).

 
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 18667/11

  It further reiterates that incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of petition, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 18667/11

  In doing so, the Constitutional Court cited the Court's case-law, such as Rotaru v. Romania [GC] (no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V); Klass and Others v. Germany (6 September 1978, Series A no. 28); Kruslin v. France (24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A); Malone; and Copland (both cited above).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 18667/11

  The Agency's Council also cited Article 8 of the Convention and some of the Court's case-law in its decision, such as Malone v. the United Kingdom (2 August 1984, Series A no. 82), and Copland v. the United Kingdom (no. 62617/00, ECHR 2007-I).