Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 26419/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SAINT-PAUL LUXEMBOURG S.A. v. LUXEMBOURG
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SAINT-PAUL LUXEMBOURG S.A. c. LUXEMBOURG
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (Article 35-1 - Epuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'article 8 - Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale (Article 8-1 - Respect du domicile) Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale ...
Besprechungen u.ä.
- lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Durchsuchung bei Zeitungsherausgeber, um Verfasser eines Artikels zu identifizieren, als Verletzung der Art 8 und 10 EMRK
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Wird zitiert von ... (4)
- EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13
Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …
14526/07 and 8 others, § 43, 20 October 2009; Nada v. Switzerland, [GC], no. 10593/08, § 183, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 242, ECHR 2012; Piechowicz, cited above, § 220; P. and S. v. Poland, no. 57375/08, § 148, 30 October 2012; Saint-Paul SA Luxembourg v. Luxemburg, no. 26419/10, § 44, 18 April 2013; R.M.S. v. Spain, no. 28775/12, § 86, 18 June 2013; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 146, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Ivinovic v. Croatia, no. 13006/13, § 44, 18 September 2014. - EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14
POSEVINI v. BULGARIA
There is no evidence that he did so under overt or implied coercion: that he was made to understand that he had no choice but to allow the police to access the account (contrast, mutatis mutandis, Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 119, 17 July 2007, and Rachwalski and Ferenc v. Poland, no. 47709/99, § 72, 28 July 2009), or that they would do so anyway (contrast, mutatis mutandis, Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, no. 26419/10, § 38, 18 April 2013). - EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08
TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA
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, 19.11.2019 - 39273/07
MAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
In line with its case-law on the matter, the Court considers that there has been an interference with the applicants" right to respect for their home in the present case (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, no. 26419/10, § 39, 18 April 2013, and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 43, ECHR 2007-IV).