Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  As regards the requirement that an "interference" should be "in accordance with the law", the Court reiterates at the outset that in the first place it is for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A; Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998-II; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012; see also Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 127, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  As regards the latter point, the Court must firstly ensure that the relevant legislation and practice afford individuals "adequate and effective safeguards against abuse"; notwithstanding the margin of appreciation which the Court recognises the Contracting States have in this sphere, it must be particularly vigilant where the authorities are empowered under national law to order and effect searches without a judicial warrant (see also Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 220, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04

  YEFIMENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention (see, in the context of decisions relating to town and country planning policies, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I, and in other contexts: Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 85-86, 26 July 2011; Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 48, 26 June 2014; Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 146-50, 12 February 2013, and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 418).

 
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  USTINOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  The above considerations under the heading of "quality of law" may overlap with similar issues analysed under the heading of "necessary in a democratic society" (see Ustinova v. Russia, no. 7994/14, § 44, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention (see, in the context of decisions relating to town and country planning policies, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I, and in other contexts: Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 85-86, 26 July 2011; Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 48, 26 June 2014; Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 146-50, 12 February 2013, and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 418).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention (see, in the context of decisions relating to town and country planning policies, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I, and in other contexts: Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 85-86, 26 July 2011; Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 48, 26 June 2014; Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 146-50, 12 February 2013, and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 418).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 26291/06

  GAHRAMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  In addition, the Court emphasises that the present case concerns the context of customs controls for "goods" carried by a person arriving at customs to declare items rather than the context of security checks, in particular those that may be carried out in relation to a person and his or her effects prior to admission to an aircraft, train or the like (see also, by way of comparison, Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 59, ECHR 2012; Gahramanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 26291/06, §§ 40-41, 15 October 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 64 and 74, ECHR 2008, and Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, §§ 40-47, 23 July 2009, under other Articles of the Convention and Protocols to it).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  57818/09 and 14 others, § 411, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  The notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of its guarantees (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  The "law" may encompass enactments of lower ranking statutes and, for instance, regulatory measures taken by professional regulatory bodies under independent rule-making powers delegated to them by Parliament (see Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 27013/10

  SÉRVULO & ASSOCIADOS - SOCIEDADE DE ADVOGADOS, RL ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

  KOTIY v. UKRAINE

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.05.2018 - C-207/16

  Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe schlägt dem Gerichtshof vor zu entscheiden, dass …

  62 Der Begriff der Daten über das Privatleben einer Person im Sinne von Art. 8 EMRK (wiedergegeben in Fn. 8 dieser Schlussanträge) wird vom EGMR weit ausgelegt (vgl. insbesondere EGMR, 13. Februar 2018, 1vashchenko gegen Russland, CE:ECHR:2018:0213JUD006106410, §§ 63 ff.), wie bereits festgestellt wurde (…vgl. Urteil vom 9. November 2010, Volker und Markus Schecke und Eifert, C-92/09 und C-93/09, EU:C:2010:662, Rn. 59 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung des EGMR).
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 48310/16

  KABLIS v. RUSSIA

  However, the breadth of the executive's discretion is such that it is likely to be difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the blocking measure on judicial review (see, for similar reasoning, Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, §§ 80 and 86, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 428; and Ivashchenko v. Russia, no. 61064/10, § 88, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 14879/20

  DURUKAN ET BIROL c. TÜRKIYE

  En conséquence, elle doit définir l'étendue et les modalités d'exercice d'un tel pouvoir avec une netteté suffisante (Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 38224/03, § 82, 14 septembre 2010, 1vashchenko c. Russie, no 61064/10, § 73, 13 février 2018 et Akdeniz et autres c. Turquie, nos 41139/15 et 41146/15, § 92, 4 mai 2021).
• EGMR, 28.02.2019 - 4755/16

  BEGHAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, for example, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; S. and Marper, cited above, § 96; Gillan and Quinton, cited above, § 77; and Ivashchenko v. Russia, no. 61064/10, § 73, 13 February 2018).