Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 9355/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,47946) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 9355/03
In determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society" the Court will take into account that a certain margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States, although the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 8 are to be interpreted narrowly, and the need for them in a given case must be convincingly established (see, with further references, Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005-). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88
NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 9355/03
The criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining this latter issue include the severity of the offence in connection with which the search and seizure was effected, the manner and circumstances in which the order was issued, in particular the availability at that time of other evidence available at that time, the content and scope of the order, having particular regard to the nature of the premises searched and the safeguards taken in order to confine the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds, and the extent of possible repercussions on the reputation of the person affected by the search (see Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, § 60; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, § 37; Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, § 57; Camenzind, cited above, § 46 and Buck, also cited above, § 45). - EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84
FUNKE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 9355/03
The criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining this latter issue include the severity of the offence in connection with which the search and seizure was effected, the manner and circumstances in which the order was issued, in particular the availability at that time of other evidence available at that time, the content and scope of the order, having particular regard to the nature of the premises searched and the safeguards taken in order to confine the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds, and the extent of possible repercussions on the reputation of the person affected by the search (see Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, § 60; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, § 37; Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, § 57; Camenzind, cited above, § 46 and Buck, also cited above, § 45). - EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83
CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 9355/03
The criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining this latter issue include the severity of the offence in connection with which the search and seizure was effected, the manner and circumstances in which the order was issued, in particular the availability at that time of other evidence available at that time, the content and scope of the order, having particular regard to the nature of the premises searched and the safeguards taken in order to confine the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds, and the extent of possible repercussions on the reputation of the person affected by the search (see Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, § 60; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, § 37; Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, § 57; Camenzind, cited above, § 46 and Buck, also cited above, § 45).
- EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00
ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA
As regards the applicant association, the Court notes that it has already held that a legal person is entitled to respect for its "home" within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-III; Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, 28 April 2005; and Kent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 9355/03, 11 October 2005).