Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NEDILENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NEDILENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

  KOTIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  In various contexts of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has emphasised that measures affecting human rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent body competent to review in a timely fashion the reasons for the decision and the relevant evidence (see, as a recent authority, Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 68, 5 March 2015).".
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 8 § 2, the interference must, among other things, be "in accordance with the law"; that is, it should have some basis in domestic law and be compatible with the rule of law (see, among other authorities, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008, and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 104, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  The Court observes that Article 13 has been consistently interpreted in its case-law as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, as a classic reference, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).

 
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  Absent a legally established procedure ensuring the meaningful involvement of an independent judiciary body in scrutinising the legality and proportionality of the search operations at the material time, the Court concludes that the interference complained of cannot be considered as having been compatible with the "rule of law": the applicable law did not provide sufficient safeguards against an abuse of the disputed police interventions (see, mutatis mutandis, Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 57, Series A no. 256-A; Volokhy, cited above, § 54; and Zosymov, cited above, §§ 61- 62).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  What is required by way of safeguard will depend, to some extent at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 8 § 2, the interference must, among other things, be "in accordance with the law"; that is, it should have some basis in domestic law and be compatible with the rule of law (see, among other authorities, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008, and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 104, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 8 § 2, the interference must, among other things, be "in accordance with the law"; that is, it should have some basis in domestic law and be compatible with the rule of law (see, among other authorities, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008, and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 104, 7 November 2013).