Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PISK-PISKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 1, Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Partly inadmissible Not necessary to examine Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 92/03

  Any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 92/03

  Any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).

• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 13.02.2006 - 11 D 94/03

  Verlust der Sachbefugnis bei Veräußerung eines Grundstücks während eines …

  Wegen der weiteren Einzelheiten des Sach- und Streitstandes wird auf den Inhalt der zum Gegenstand der mündlichen Verhandlung gemachten Gerichtsakten des vorliegenden Rechtsstreits, der Verfahren 11 D 92/03.AK und 11 D 12/06.AK sowie auf die vom Beklagten vorgelegten Planungsunterlagen und Verwaltungsvorgänge verwiesen.
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

  MOCNY v. POLAND

  In numerous cases concerning the monitoring of prisoners" correspondence with the Court it was settled practice that the Court would raise of its own motion the issues of compliance with Article 8 and, in some cases also of compliance with Article 34 of the Convention (see, amongst many others, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 20, 14 June 2005; Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, § 19, 6 December 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 52, 4 May 2006; Maksym v. Poland, no. 14450/02, § 20, 19 December 2006; Lewak v. Poland, no. 21890/03, § 20, 6 September 2007; Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, § 56, 6 September 2007; Kolodzinski v. Poland, no. 44521/04, § 23, 8 January 2008; Dzitkowski v. Poland, no. 35833/03, § 50, 27 November 2007, Stepniak v. Poland, no. 29366/03, § 14, 29 January 2008, Miernicki v. Poland, no. 10847/02, § 75, 27 October 2009).