Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATEESCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MATEESCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10
• EGMR, 06.09.2017 - 1944/10

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2015, 1003

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  Secondly, it refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be formulated with sufficient precision so as to be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among other authorities, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30, and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 94-96 ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  It is, after all, in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant opportunity to develop relationships with the outside world (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 37119/97

  N.F. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  Accordingly, the wording of the legal provisions regulating the practice of the profession of lawyer was not sufficiently foreseeable to enable the applicant - even though, being aspiring lawyer, he was informed and well-versed in the law - to realise that the concurrent practice of another profession, not enumerated among those excluded by the law, entailed the denial of his right to practise as lawyer (see, for instance, N.F. v. Italy, no. 37119/97, § 31, ECHR 2001-IX; Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 119, 13 January 2009; and Ternovszky v. Hungary, no. 67545/09, § 26, 14 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  Secondly, it refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be formulated with sufficient precision so as to be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among other authorities, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30, and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 94-96 ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 19348/04

  Sorvisto ./. Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  Accordingly, the wording of the legal provisions regulating the practice of the profession of lawyer was not sufficiently foreseeable to enable the applicant - even though, being aspiring lawyer, he was informed and well-versed in the law - to realise that the concurrent practice of another profession, not enumerated among those excluded by the law, entailed the denial of his right to practise as lawyer (see, for instance, N.F. v. Italy, no. 37119/97, § 31, ECHR 2001-IX; Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 119, 13 January 2009; and Ternovszky v. Hungary, no. 67545/09, § 26, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  It further notes that the loss of earnings indicated by the applicant as a basis for the claim in respect of pecuniary damage refers to income potentially obtained from practising law, at the expense of his earnings from his medical practice, and is therefore speculative in nature (see, mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 67, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  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 Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 48, Series A no. 323).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  The Court recalls that Article 8 of the Convention "protects a right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world" (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III), and that the notion of "private life" does not in principle exclude activities of a professional or business nature (see C. v. Belgium, 7 August 1996, § 25, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1944/10

  55480/00 and 59330/00, § 48, ECHR 2004-VIII).

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  34841/06, 59954/09, 746/10, 1096/10, 1162/10 and 1898/10, § 63, 31 July 2012; Mateescu v. Romania, no. 1944/10, § 39 in fine, 14 January 2014; and Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 33160/04

  SAHIN KUS c. TURQUIE

  En ayant affecté la possibilité pour le requérant d'exercer la profession d'instituteur, la restriction litigieuse a ainsi entraîné des répercussions évidentes sur la jouissance par celui-ci du droit au respect de sa vie privée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bigaeva, précité, §§ 24-25, Mateescu c. Roumanie, no 1944/10, § 21, 14 janvier 2014).