Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 8 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUREK v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 57986/00
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  These facts constitute an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1997, Series A no. 116, p. 22, § 48, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  These facts constitute an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1997, Series A no. 116, p. 22, § 48, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-...).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  Furthermore, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce (see Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, § 33).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  In particular, the Court will examine whether the procedural protection enjoyed by the applicant at the domestic level in respect of his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention was practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, § 42), and consequently compatible with that Article.
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  These facts constitute an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1997, Series A no. 116, p. 22, § 48, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-...).

• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11

  REGNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  This omission is all the more serious as it deprived the applicant of the possibility of effectively presenting his case regarding employment, which this Court has repeatedly held directly affects the Article 8 rights of the persons concerned (see Rotaru, cited above, § 46; Leander, cited above, § 48; Rainys and Gasparavicius v. Lithuania, nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, § 35, 7 April 2005; Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, § 110, ECHR 2006-II (extracts); Sidabras and Others v. Lithuania, nos.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.07.2021 - C-132/20

  Getin Noble Bank - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 267 AEUV- Begriff …

  62 Urteile des EGMR vom 14. Februar 2006, Turek/Slowakei (CE:ECHR:2006:0214JUD005798600, § 115), vom 24. Juni 2008, Adamsons/Lettland (CE:ECHR:2008:0624JUD000366903, § 116), und vom 24. April 2007, Matyjek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2007:0424JUD003818403, § 62).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 20688/04

  NIKOLOVA ET VANDOVA c. BULGARIE

  As stated above, the Court recognises that the State may have legitimate grounds to limit access to certain documents, especially when they concern State security (see paragraph 73 above and the judgments in Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-II (extracts), and Welke and Bialek, cited above, § 63).

 
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA

  In its judgment in Turek v. Slovakia (no. 57986/00, ECHR-II), the Court clearly stated (with reference to lustration proceedings) that, unless the contrary is shown on the facts of a specific case, "it cannot be assumed that there remains a continuing and actual public interest in imposing limitations on access to materials classified as confidential under former regimes.
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  The Court has already dealt with the issue of lustration proceedings in the Turek v. Slovakia case (no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The release or publication of information systematically collected and stored by the authorities, regardless of whether it concerns someone's private or public activities, comes within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention and constitutes an interference with the right of those concerned to "respect for [their] private... life" (see, in general, Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116; Cemalettin Canli v. Turkey, no. 22427/04, §§ 33-37, 18 November 2008; and M.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24029/07, §§ 187-90, 13 November 2012, and, specifically with respect to information about collaboration with the communist-era security services in some east European States, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43, 44 and 46, ECHR 2000-V; Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, § 110, ECHR 2006-II (extracts); Sõro v. Estonia, no. 22588/08, § 56, 3 September 2015; and Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29908/11, §§ 176-77, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07

  V.C. v. SLOVAKIA

  It has been its practice to examine, where appropriate, whether such guarantees were complied with irrespective of the applicants" non-reliance on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see also Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, §§ 111-114, ECHR 2006-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 3669/03

  ADAMSONS c. LETTONIE

  En troisième lieu, lorsqu'une loi nationale prévoit une restriction des droits garantis par la Convention, elle doit être suffisamment précise pour pouvoir individualiser la responsabilité de chacune des personnes concernées et contenir les garanties procédurales adéquates (voir, mutatis mutandis, Turek c. Slovaquie, no 57986/00, § 115, CEDH 2006-... (extraits), et Matyjek c. Pologne, no 38184/03, § 62, CEDH 2007-...).
• EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 38184/03

  MATYJEK c. POLOGNE

  La Cour a déjà abordé la question des procédures de lustration dans l'affaire Turek c. Slovaquie (no 57986/00, § 115, CEDH 2006-II).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05

  LUBOCH v. POLAND

  The Court had already dealt with the issue of lustration proceedings in the Turek v. Slovakia case (no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 18659/05

  KANDLER ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19

  THANZA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  HASANALI ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 10104/08

  ZABLOCKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 37293/09

  ZAWISZA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 24254/05

  TOMASZ KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 49974/08

  MOCZULSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 14336/05

  KAMBUROV v. BULGARIA (II)
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07

  JALOWIECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07

  GORNY v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 17625/05

  CHODYNICKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 68761/01

  BOBEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 52443/07

  MOSCICKI v. POLAND