Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GREUTER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 40045/98

  The Court recalls that telephone communications are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and that the storing by a public authority of data relating to an individual's private life and the subsequent use of it amount to an interference with the right to respect for private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (cf. Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no 27798/95, ECHR 2000-II, §§ 45 and 70).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 40045/98

  This implies inter alia that the interference by the executive authorities with an individual's rights should be subject to effective supervision, which should normally be carried out by the judiciary, at least in the last resort, since judicial control affords the best guarantees of independence, impartiality and a proper procedure (cf. Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V, § 59).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 40045/98

  On the basis of, inter alia, the Court's findings in the cases of Kruslin and Huvig v. France (judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A&B) as regards the possibility of inspection by the judge and by the defence, the official records and transcripts of tapped telephone conversations were not destroyed immediately but were kept until shortly after the closure of the case.
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 40045/98

  The fact that information about an individual is being gathered by way of secret surveillance, and that its storage and possible release is not disclosed to the person concerned, does not of itself warrant the conclusion that such an interference is not "necessary in a democratic society" (cf. the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 27, § 66).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For its part, the Court has accepted, in the context of "the interests of national security" and "public safety" and "the prevention of crime", that investigative methods may have to be used covertly (see, among other authorities, Klass, cited above, § 48; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 81, Series A no. 82; and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 66, Series A no. 116), even against persons who are not themselves objects of investigation or surveillance (see Greuter v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40045/98, 19 March 2002; and by implication, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI, and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008).