Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 38079/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,66867) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BENEDIKTSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND
Art. 8 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88
NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 38079/06
Moreover, even where it occurs in the context of professional activities or in the work place, the interference with such communications may affect a person's enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private life within the meaning of this provision (Halford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, pp. 1016, § 43; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, § 29; Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 41, § 8, p.52, § 25; Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, pp. 12-13, § 26, and pp. 21-22, § 51). - EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84
HUVIG c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 38079/06
Moreover, even where it occurs in the context of professional activities or in the work place, the interference with such communications may affect a person's enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private life within the meaning of this provision (Halford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, pp. 1016, § 43; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, § 29; Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 41, § 8, p.52, § 25; Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, pp. 12-13, § 26, and pp. 21-22, § 51). - EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83
CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 38079/06
Moreover, even where it occurs in the context of professional activities or in the work place, the interference with such communications may affect a person's enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private life within the meaning of this provision (Halford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, pp. 1016, § 43; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, § 29; Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 41, § 8, p.52, § 25; Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, pp. 12-13, § 26, and pp. 21-22, § 51). - EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 62617/00
Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte schützt private Nutzung des Internets
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 38079/06
According to the Court's case-law, the collection and storage of personal information relating to a person's e-mail are covered by the notions of correspondence and private life in Article 8 § 1 (see Copland v. the United Kingdom, no. 62617/00, §§ 41 and 44, ECHR 2007-...).
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 61496/08
Firma durfte Mitarbeiter wegen privater Nachrichten kündigen
- EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 1874/13
LÓPEZ RIBALDA AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
It may include activities of a professional or business nature and may be concerned in measures effected outside a person's home or private premises (compare Peck v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 57-58; Perry v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 36-37; and Benediktsdóttir v. Iceland (dec.), no. 38079/06, 16 June 2009). - EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 420/07
Vereinbarkeit einer vom Arbeitgeber angeordneten und durch eine Detektei …
It may include activities of a professional or business nature and may be concerned in measures effected outside a person's home or private premises (compare Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2003-I; Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, §§ 36-37, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); and Benediktsdóttir v. Iceland (dec.), no. 38079/06, 16 June 2009).