Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,62874
EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,62874)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.05.2010 - 26839/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,62874)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Mai 2010 - 26839/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,62874)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62874) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
    Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (victime) Non-violation de l'art. 8 Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'art. 13 (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim) No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim);No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 13

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (40)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

    LEANDER c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    The Court has held on several occasions that the reference to "foreseeability" in the context of interception of communications cannot be the same as in many other fields (see Malone, cited above, § 67; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 51, Series A no. 116; Association for European Integration, cited above, § 79; and Al-Nashif, cited above, § 121).

    foreseeability in the special context of secret measures of surveillance, such as the interception of communications, cannot mean that an individual should be able to foresee when the authorities are likely to intercept his communications so that he can adapt his conduct accordingly (see, inter alia, Leander [v. Sweden, judgment of 26 August 1987, Series A no. 116], p. 23, § 51).

    In particular, they argued that the applicant had no arguable claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 or Article 8; that insofar as the applicant's complaints were in essence ones that challenged the relevant legislative scheme, the Article 13 complaint must fail (citing Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 77(d), Series A no. 116); and that in any event the IPT offered an effective remedy.

  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

    Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    The particular position taken by the Court in interception cases (including Association for European Integration and Human Rights) that rights in the field of secret interception powers were not civil rights was, they argued, supported by the Court's general jurisprudence on "civil rights" (citing Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, §§ 25, 28 and 30, ECHR 2001-VII; and Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 38, ECHR 2000-X).

    It has on several occasions affirmed the principle that this concept is "autonomous", within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).

  • EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

    ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    The applicant referred to the Court's practice whereby, where national courts had conducted a comprehensive and convincing analysis on the basis of relevant Convention case-law and principles, as in the present case, the Court would need very strong reasons to depart from their conclusions and substitute its own views for those of national courts in interpreting domestic law (citing, inter alia, Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 120, ECHR 2005-X).

    It has on several occasions affirmed the principle that this concept is "autonomous", within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).

     
  • EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    It was clear that secret powers of interception which were used solely in the interests of national security or in order to prevent and detect serious crime formed part of the "hard core of public authority prerogatives", such that it was inappropriate to classify any related rights and obligations as "civil" in nature (citing Ferrazzini, § 29; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 61, ECHR 2007-IV).
  • EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

    LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    The interests of national security or the need to keep secret methods of investigation of crime must be weighed against the general right to adversarial proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    In this regard, the Court refers to its finding in Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88 to 89, Series A no. 61 that administrative orders and instructions concerning the scheme for screening prisoners' letters established a practice which had to be followed save in exceptional circumstances and that, as a consequence, although they did not themselves have the force of law, to the extent to which those concerned were made sufficiently aware of their contents they could be taken into account in assessing whether the criterion of foreseeability was satisfied in the application of the Prison Rules.
  • EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

    MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    The applicant referred to the Court's practice whereby, where national courts had conducted a comprehensive and convincing analysis on the basis of relevant Convention case-law and principles, as in the present case, the Court would need very strong reasons to depart from their conclusions and substitute its own views for those of national courts in interpreting domestic law (citing, inter alia, Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 120, ECHR 2005-X).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

    ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    Further, limitations could not impair the very essence of fair trial rights and any restrictions had to be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (citing Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 61, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EKMR, 15.10.1980 - 8403/78

    JESPERS v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    The Court reiterates that according to the principle of equality of arms, as one of the features of the wider concept of a fair trial, each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, for example, Jespers v. Belgium, no. 8403/78, Commission decision of 15 October 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 27, p. 61; Foucher v. France, judgment of 18 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, § 34; and Bulut v. Austria, judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 380-81, § 47).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

    Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
    Finally, and in any event, relying on Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 78, ECHR 2006-XI, the applicant contended that he was not required to demonstrate that the impugned measures had actually been applied to him in order to establish an interference with his private life.
  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

    LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

    MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

    HUVIG c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 13.09.2018 - 58170/13

    Big Brother Watch u.a./United Kingdom - Massenhafte Überwachung von Kommunikation

    20 Liberty and Others, cited above, §§ 63-65.21 Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, §§ 158-60, 18 May 2010.22 Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 231 and 264, ECHR 2015.23 Szábo and Vissy, cited above.
  • EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

    EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

    Dans deux affaires importantes, Kennedy c. Royaume-Uni (no 26839/05, §§ 122-123, 18 mai 2010) et Klass et autres c. Allemagne (6 septembre 1978, § 34, série A no 28), qui étaient dirigées contre deux grands États démocratiques - le Royaume-Uni et la République fédérale d'Allemagne -, la Cour a confirmé l'effectivité des systèmes nationaux en cause pour lutter contre l'arbitraire.
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.12.2019 - C-311/18

    Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe ist der Beschluss 2010/87/EU der …

    Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 18. Mai 2010, Kennedy/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2010:0518JUD002683905, § 155), Urteil Zakharov (§ 236), Urteil Centrüm för Rättvisa (§ 107) und Urteil Big Brother Watch (§ 322).

    186 Vgl. u. a. Urteil Klass (§ 56), EGMR, 18. Mai 2010, Kennedy/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2010:0518JUD002683905, § 167), und Urteil Zakharov (§§ 233 und 258).

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