Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AGEYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Violation ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  The Court observes that the hospital and health authorities not only disclosed or made available to third parties data concerning G. that was medical, personal and sensitive, including his name (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 24, Series A no. 280-B), photographs containing, among other things, information of a medical character, (see Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 40, 15 January 2009), and his detailed medical diagnosis (see Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002, M.S. v. Sweden, 27 August 1997, §§ 31-35, Reports 1997-IV and P. and S. v. Poland, no. 57375/08, § 128, 30 October 2012), but also authorised direct access of TV crews to a boy who was only three years old at the time and was not accompanied by his parents.
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  Lastly, in connection with its earlier conclusions regarding the defects in the revocation of adoption proceedings in respect of G. and P. which ended with the judgment of 17 June 2009, as upheld on appeal on 13 August 2009 (see paragraphs 143-155), the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress is, in principle, the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  While the choice of the means to secure compliance with Article 8 in the sphere of protection against acts of individuals is, in principle, within the State's margin of appreciation, effective deterrence against grave acts, where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake, requires efficient criminal-law provisions (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 23-24 and 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003-XII).

 
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 1914/02

  DUPUIS AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  Moreover, the Court has previously stated that it would be inconceivable to consider that there can be no prior or contemporaneous discussion of the subject matter of court proceedings, be it in specialised journals, in the general press or amongst the public at large (Dupuis and Others v. France, no. 1914/02, § 35, ECHR 2007-VII).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  Not only do the media have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public has a right to receive them (see News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2000-I; Worm v. Austria, § 50, 29 August 1997, Reports 1997-V).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others or of the proper administration of justice, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 36505/02

  AUGUST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  While the choice of the means to secure compliance with Article 8 in the sphere of protection against acts of individuals is, in principle, within the State's margin of appreciation, effective deterrence against grave acts, where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake, requires efficient criminal-law provisions (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 23-24 and 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 53886/00

  TOURANCHEAU ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  At the same time, it has also stated that in this context the guarantees of a fair trial must be respected (see Tourancheau and July v. France, no. 53886/00, § 66, 24 November 2005), and that the limits of permissible comment may not extend to statements which are likely to prejudice, whether intentionally or not, the chances of a person receiving a fair trial or to undermine the confidence of the public in the role of the courts in the administration of criminal justice (see Tourancheau and July, cited above, § 66, and Worm, cited above, § 50).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  So, a law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for example, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 61, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, such measures should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and can only be justified if they are motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the children's best interests (see Johansen v. Norway, 7 August 1996, § 78, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 148, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.06.2013 - C-131/12

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Jääskinen sind Suchmaschinen-Diensteanbieter für …

  82 - Zur Handlungspflicht des Staats zum Schutz der Privatsphäre, wenn diese durch Akteure des Privatsektors verletzt wird, und zum Erfordernis, eine solche Handlungspflicht mit dem Recht des Privaten auf freie Meinungsäußerung in ein Gleichgewicht zu bringen, vgl. z. B. Urteile des EGMR vom 24. Juni 2004, Von Hannover/Deutschland (Nr. 59320/00, ECHR 2004-VI), und vom 13. April 2013, Ageyevy/Russland (Nr. 7075/10).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 56925/08

  EGMR zur Verurteilung eines Journalisten wegen Veröffentlichung von Informationen …

  As the Court has previously pointed out, "this must be borne in mind by journalists when commenting on pending criminal proceedings since the limits of permissible comment may not extend to statements which are likely to prejudice, whether intentionally or not, the chances of a person receiving a fair trial or to undermine the confidence of the public in the role of the courts in the administration of criminal justice" (ibid.; see also Worm, cited above, § 50; Campos Dâmaso, cited above, § 31; Pinto Coelho v. Portugal, no. 28439/08, § 33, 28 June 2011; and Ageyevy v. Russia, no. 7075/10, §§ 224-225, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 48718/11

  PINTO COELHO c. PORTUGAL (N° 2)

  Comme la Cour l'a déjà souligné, « les journalistes qui rédigent des articles sur des procédures pénales en cours doivent s'en souvenir, car les limites du commentaire admissible peuvent ne pas englober des déclarations qui risqueraient, intentionnellement ou non, de réduire les chances d'une personne de bénéficier d'un procès équitable ou de saper la confiance du public dans le rôle tenu par les tribunaux dans l'administration de la justice pénale » (ibidem, Worm, précité, § 50, Campos Dâmaso c. Portugal, no 17107/05, § 31, 24 avril 2008, Pinto Coelho c. Portugal, no 28439/08, § 33, 28 juin 2011, et Ageyevy c. Russie, no 7075/10, §§ 224-225, 18 avril 2013).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2021 - 41139/15

  AKDENIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour a considéré en la matière que les autorités nationales n'étaient pas seulement soumises à une obligation négative de ne pas divulguer sciemment des informations protégées par l'article 8, mais qu'elles devaient également prendre des mesures afin de protéger efficacement le droit d'un prévenu (Bédat, précité, § 76, et, voir aussi, Ageyevy c. Russie, no 7075/10, §§ 224-25, 18 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 16572/17

  HADDAD c. ESPAGNE

  Toutefois, eu égard aux circonstances particulières de la présente affaire et au besoin urgent de mettre fin à la violation du droit du requérant au respect de sa vie familiale, la Cour invite les autorités internes à réexaminer, dans un bref délai, la situation du requérant et de sa fille mineure à la lumière du présent arrêt ainsi que la possibilité d'établir un quelconque contact entre eux en tenant compte de la situation actuelle de l'enfant et de son intérêt supérieur, et à prendre toute autre mesure appropriée dans l'intérêt supérieur de la mineure (Soares de Melo c. Portugal, no 72850/14, § 130, 16 février 2016 ; Bondavalli, précité, § 83 ; Ageyevy c. Russie, no 7075/10, § 244, 18 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 60083/19

  D.M. ET N. c. ITALIE

  Toutefois, eu égard aux circonstances particulières de la présente affaire, au fait que la procédure d'adoption n'est pas encore conclue et au besoin urgent de mettre fin à la violation du droit des requérantes au respect de leur vie familiale, la Cour invite les autorités internes à réexaminer, dans un bref délai, la situation des deux requérantes à la lumière du présent arrêt et d'envisager la possibilité d'établir un quelconque contact entre elles en tenant compte de la situation actuelle de l'enfant et de son intérêt supérieur, et à prendre toute autre mesure appropriée conformément à ce dernier (Soares de Melo c. Portugal, no 72850/14, § 130, 16 février 2016, Ageyevy c. Russie, no 7075/10, § 244, 18 avril 2013, Haddad c. Espagne, no 16572/17, § 79, 18 juin 2019).
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 78042/16

  X ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle comprend des informations personnelles dont un individu peut légitimement attendre qu'elles ne soient pas publiées sans son consentement (Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne [GC], no 39954/08, § 83, 7 février 2012), telles les informations confidentielles relatives à l'adoption d'un enfant (Ageyevy c. Russie, no 7075/10, § 193, 18 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 37873/04

  KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 95, 7 February 2012) and generally extends to the personal information which individuals can legitimately expect to not be exposed to the public without their consent (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 75, 6 April 2010; Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 61, 12 October 2010; and Ageyevy v. Russia, no. 7075/10, § 193, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 44958/05

  ZAIET v. ROMANIA

  Even assuming that the authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the need for the annulment of the adoption (see mutatis mutandis, Kurochkin v. Ukraine, no. 42276/08, § 52, 20 May 2010 and Ageyevy v. Russia, no. 7075/10, § 127, 18 April 2013), the Court must still be satisfied in this particular case that there are circumstances which justify the annulment of the applicant's adoption thirty-one years after the adoption order had been issued.
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 34159/17

  M.L. v. SLOVAKIA

  In particular, the right of journalists to divulge information concerning issues of general interest is subject to their acting in good faith and providing "reliable and precise" information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, for example, Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 42, 23 October 2008, and Ageyevy v. Russia, no. 7075/10, § 226, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 61362/12

  V.P. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 8647/12

  Y.G. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 31560/20 (anhängig)

  D.K. AND R.K. v. LITHUANIA