Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.01.1999 - 33763/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,35546) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WEBORA v. AUSTRIA
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88
NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.1999 - 33763/96
As to the necessity of the interference, the Court recalls that the notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (McLeod v. the United Kingdom judgment, op. cit., § 52; Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 35-36, § 37). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81
POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.1999 - 33763/96
In this context the Court found that it is "difficult to conceive how a claim that is "manifestly ill-founded" can nevertheless be "arguable" and vice versa" (Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-33). - EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.1999 - 33763/96
The Court finds that the search of the applicant's premises constituted an interference with his right to respect for his home, which breaches Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 and is, in addition, "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims in question (see as a recent authority, Eur. Court HR, McLeod v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 September 1998, § 37, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998; see also Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 26).