Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DEBÚT ZRT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 24851/10

  The Court has held that the protection of professional or business activities or premises would be consonant with the essential object and purpose of Article 8, namely to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31; Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 31, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 24851/10

  Assuming the applicability of Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that any potential unfairness occurring in the Competition Board's proceedings must be seen as having been remedied by the ensuing three court instances which examined the merits of the applicants" arguments about the admissibility of the documents as evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, no. 43509/08, §§ 57 to 67, 27 September 2011; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 61, Series A no. 294-B; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 24851/10

  The Court has held that the protection of professional or business activities or premises would be consonant with the essential object and purpose of Article 8, namely to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31; Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 31, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 24851/10

  In certain circumstances the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention may be construed as including the right to respect for a company's registered office, branches or other business premises (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 97/11

  DELTA PEKÁRNY A.S. c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Le Gouvernement rappelle d'abord que, comme les locaux des sociétés commerciales ne servent pas prima facie aux professions et métiers qui peuvent être exercés à partir du domicile privé des individus, les attentes des représentants de telles sociétés ne peuvent pas être les mêmes que dans le cas de domiciles privés ou de locaux destinés à l'exercice d'activités professionnelles par les particuliers (Debút Zrt. et autres c. Hongrie (déc.), no 24851/10, 20 novembre 2012).