Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHMEL v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Khmel v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 20383/04

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 95-96, ECHR 2012; Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 61, 10 February 2009; Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 115, 23 October 2008; Gurgenidze v. Georgia, no. 71678/01, § 55, 17 October 2006; Sciacca v. Italy, no. 50774/99, § 29, ECHR 2005-I, and Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, §§ 50-53, ECHR 2004-VI).

  Therefore, I believe that the Court should have applied the approach used by the Grand Chamber in the case of Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012) in striking a balance between the conflicting rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 20383/04

  The notion of "penal procedure" within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 52, ECHR 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 44647/98

  PECK c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 20383/04

  In Peck v. the United Kingdom (no. 44647/98, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2003-I), the disclosure to the media for broadcast use of video footage of the applicant whose suicide attempt was caught on surveillance television cameras was found to be a serious interference with the applicant's private life, notwithstanding that he was in a public place at the time.

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06

  KÜCHL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 20383/04

  It mainly presupposes the individual's right to control the use of that image including the right to refuse publication thereof (see Küchl v. Austria, no. 51151/06, § 58, 4 December 2012; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 63737/00

  PERRY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 20383/04

  Noting that the footage had not been obtained voluntarily or in circumstances where it could be reasonably anticipated that it would be made, the Court considered that the recording and use of the video disclosed an interference with the applicant's right to respect for private life (see Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, §§ 39-43, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 20383/04

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 95-96, ECHR 2012; Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 61, 10 February 2009; Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 115, 23 October 2008; Gurgenidze v. Georgia, no. 71678/01, § 55, 17 October 2006; Sciacca v. Italy, no. 50774/99, § 29, ECHR 2005-I, and Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, §§ 50-53, ECHR 2004-VI).

• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 71475/11

  DUPLENKO v. RUSSIA

  In comparable cases the Court held that proceedings were "criminal" in nature for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, §§ 52-57; Khmel v. Russia, no. 20383/04, §§ 58-63, 12 December 2013; and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 53, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 50734/12

  USPENSKIY v. RUSSIA

  In comparable cases in respect of Russia the Court has held that proceedings were "criminal" in nature for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, §§ 52-57; Khmel v. Russia, no. 20383/04, §§ 58-63, 12 December 2013; and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 53, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 28882/14

  LAYTSAN v. RUSSIA

  The proceedings were "criminal" in nature for the purpose of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, §§ 52-57; Khmel v. Russia, no. 20383/04, §§ 58-63, 12 December 2013; and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 53, 8 October 2019).