Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KYRIAKIDES v. CYPRUS

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 39058/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  It considers that Article 8 is applicable to the applicant's complaint in that it concerned the protection of his moral and psychological integrity as well as his reputation, all of which fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see, inter alia, X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 22, Series A no. 91; Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).

  Respect for private life also comprises, 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, 28.01.2003 - 44647/98

  PECK c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  The Court has, on a number of occasions, ruled that "private life" is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 57, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  It may also be applicable where the criminal proceedings proper have terminated in an acquittal and other courts issue decisions voicing the continued existence of suspicion regarding the accused's innocence or otherwise casting doubt on the correctness of the acquittal (Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII).

 
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  The Court has previously held that an interference affecting an individual's ability to engage in professional activities and creating serious difficulties for him in terms of earning his living might have, in certain circumstances, repercussions on the enjoyment of his private life (see, mutatis mutandis, Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 48, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00

  ABEBERRY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  Specifically, in respect to the protection of an individual's reputation, the Court notes that it has been acknowledged as an interest guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, § 19, 19 September 2006; Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; Abeberry v. France (dec.) no. 58729/00, 21 September 2004).
• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  This could require the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individuals" rights and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific measures (see Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 110, ECHR 2007-...; X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 23).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  The applicable principles are nonetheless similar (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  The Court reiterates that once a case has been duly referred to it, it is entitled to examine every question of law arising in the course of the proceedings and concerning facts submitted to its examination in the light of the Convention and the Protocol as a whole (see, inter alia, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  The Court reiterates that the scope of Article 6 § 2 is not limited to criminal proceedings that are pending (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  Although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument of the parties involved (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).