Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NEDESCU v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NEDESCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW-RR 2019, 193

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  The Court reiterates that the wording "in accordance with the law" requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus be adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  The Court reiterates that the wording "in accordance with the law" requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus be adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  The concept of private life also encompasses the right to "personal development" or the right to self-determination (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III), and the right to respect for the decisions both to have and not to have a child (see Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007-I, and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 212, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  Finally, in the case of Vo v. France [GC] (no. 53924/00, ECHR 2004-VIII) the Court held as follows, in respect of the nature and degree of protection due to a human embryo:.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  It covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 22, Series A no. 91) and, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 54767/00

  BORGHI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  The Government argued at the outset that the State could not be held responsible for acts committed by private persons, such as the S. Clinic, and relied in that regard on Borghi v. Italy (dec., no. 54767/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts)) and Kiratli v. Turkey (dec., no. 6497/04, 2 September 2008).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  Such an interference will be contrary to Article 8 unless it is "prescribed by law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, § 34; Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 140, ECHR 2009; and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 227, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  Such an interference will be contrary to Article 8 unless it is "prescribed by law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, § 34; Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 140, ECHR 2009; and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 227, ECHR 2015).
• EuGH - C-303/01 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Kefalas u.a. - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Areios Pagos …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  The relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007/C 303/01) are worded as follows:.
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 8709/20

  LIA v. MALTA

  The phrase thus implies, inter alia, that domestic law must be sufficiently foreseeable in its terms to give individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which the authorities are entitled to resort to measures affecting their rights under the Convention (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 117, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Nedescu v. Romania, no. 70035/10, § 77, 16 January 2018).