Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2021,5640
EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08 (https://dejure.org/2021,5640)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.03.2021 - 42371/08 (https://dejure.org/2021,5640)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. März 2021 - 42371/08 (https://dejure.org/2021,5640)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,5640) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

    NERSESYAN v. ARMENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

    KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    As regards the applicant's complaint about the lack of access to the Supreme Court, the Court recalls that the same issue has already been examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and was found to have been compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kadagishvili v. Georgia, no. 12391/06, § 175, 14 May 2020; Kobiashvili, cited above, § 76; Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30742/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

    TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    As regards the applicant's complaint about the lack of access to the Supreme Court, the Court recalls that the same issue has already been examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and was found to have been compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kadagishvili v. Georgia, no. 12391/06, § 175, 14 May 2020; Kobiashvili, cited above, § 76; Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30742/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 40109/03

    JACZKO v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

    KUKKONEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

    WNUK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 29.08.2000 - 40490/98

    JAHNKE and LENOBLE v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    In the light of the Court's relevant case-law (they referred to Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 81, ECHR 2004-I, and Jahnke and Lenoble v. France (dec.), no. 40490/98, ECHR 2000-IX) the Government submitted that the reasoning of the Supreme Court as to the admissibility of the applicant's appeal was sufficient and adequate.
  • EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 26419/10

    SAINT-PAUL LUXEMBOURG S.A. c. LUXEMBOURG

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    For an interference with an applicant's "home" or his or her "private life" to be in compliance with Article 8 it must be "in accordance with the law", undertaken in pursuit of a "legitimate aim", and "necessary in a democratic society" (see, for example, Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, § 167, 24 January 2017; Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 227, ECHR 2015; Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, no. 26419/10, § 40, 18 April 2013; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 130, 18 May 2010).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

    Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    Secondly, it must consider the specific circumstances of each case, including but not limited to the severity of the offence in question, the manner and circumstances in which the search warrant was issued, the availability of other evidence at the time, the content and scope of the warrant in question, and the extent of possible repercussions on the reputation of the person affected by the search (see, among many other authorities, Smirnov, § 44; Camenzind, §§ 45-46; and K.S. and M.S. v. Germany, § 44, all cited above; see also Misan v Russia, no. 4261/04, § 55, 2 October 2014, and Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005-IV).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

    EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
    For an interference with an applicant's "home" or his or her "private life" to be in compliance with Article 8 it must be "in accordance with the law", undertaken in pursuit of a "legitimate aim", and "necessary in a democratic society" (see, for example, Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, § 167, 24 January 2017; Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 227, ECHR 2015; Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, no. 26419/10, § 40, 18 April 2013; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 130, 18 May 2010).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 7215/10

    Zum Begriff des fairen Verfahrens und der Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung nach Art.

  • EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 4261/04

    MISAN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

    GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

    Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  • EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

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

  • EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

    KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot;

  • EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 51693/13

    MODESTOU c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

    STRAISTEANU AND AGACHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    The Court further reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" as used in the second paragraph of Article 8 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. (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 228-230, ECHR 2015, with further references, and Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, § 50, 18 March 2021).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 69148/16

    KARIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN

    However, the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 23 November 2016 and it does not therefore comply with the six-month rule (compare Sadigov, cited above, §§ 22-25, and Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, § 46, 18 March 2021).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht