Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  It is crucial not only to respect the sense of privacy of a patient but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general (see Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; P. and S. v. Poland, no. 57375/08, § 128, 30 October 2012; and L.H. v. Latvia, no. 52019/07, § 56, 29 April 2014).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 20511/03

  I v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  The Court reiterates that personal information relating to a patient belongs to his or her private life (see, for example, I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 35, 17 July 2008, and L.L. v. France, no. 7508/02, § 32, ECHR 2006-XI).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  The Court reiterates that the wording "in accordance with the law" requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus be adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  The Court reiterates that the wording "in accordance with the law" requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus be adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  It strikes me as too rigid an approach to find, as the Court did in paragraph 54 of the judgment, that the Government were estopped from raising that argument, especially since a number of precedents appear to argue in favour of the opposite conclusion (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 16, Series A no. 9; Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 43, ECHR 2003-VIII; and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 187, ECHR 2009).

• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13

  M.K. v. UKRAINE

  As that is the case, the Court is not required to determine whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim and, if so, whether it was proportionate to the aim pursued (see Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 59, 23 February 2016).

  Accordingly, the Court is not required to determine whether the disclosure pursued a legitimate aim and, if so, whether it was proportionate to the aim pursued (see Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 59, 23 February 2016).

  [2] L.L. v. France, no. 7508/02, ECHR 2006 XI; Radu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 50073/07, 15 April 2014; L.H. v. Latvia, no. 52019/07, 29 April 2014, § 56; Konovalova v. Russia, no. 37873/04, 9 October 2014, §§ 27, 41; Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, 23 February 2016, § 38; Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, 26 January 2017; Frâncu v. Romania, no. 69356/13, 13 October 2020, § 52.

• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  SURIKOV v. UKRAINE

  This is all the more true where the information concerns a person's distant past (see Rotaru, cited above, § 43, and M.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24029/07, § 187, 13 November 2012) or when the processing affects highly intimate and sensitive categories of information, notably the information relating to physical or mental health of an identifiable individual (see, in particular, Z. v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 40, 17 July 2008; P. and S. v. Poland, no. 57375/08, § 128, 30 October 2012; L.H. v. Latvia, no. 52019/07, § 56, 29 April 2014; and Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016).

  [7] Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 50, 23 February 2016; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, § 43, 2 December 2010; and C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1365/07, §§ 42-49, 24 April 2008.

• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  P.T. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  This is all the more true when the processing affects highly intimate and sensitive categories of information, notably the information relating to physical or mental health of an identifiable individual (see, in particular, Z. v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016 and Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 70, 26 January 2017).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 34872/16

  WIERZBICKI AND WIERZBICKA v. POLAND

  Special diligence and good judgment on the part of journalists are also called for in the context of releasing and commenting on highly intimate and sensitive medical data, for example concerning a private individual's mental health (see, regarding leaks of medical data, I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 40, 17 July 2008; P. and S. v. Poland, no. 57375/08, § 128, 30 October 2012; L.H. v. Latvia, no. 52019/07, § 56, 29 April 2014; Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016; and Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 86, 26 January 2017).
• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 1781/14

  LUTAYENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the light of its findings in a number of other cases (see, in particular, mutatis mutandis, Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, §§ 33-36 and 41-44, ECHR 2003-IX; Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no. 39229/03, §§ 82-86, 7 July 2011; Konovalova v. Russia, no. 37873/04, §§ 48-50, 9 October 2014; and Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, §§ 55-60, 23 February 2016) the Court concludes that the present complaint is admissible and that it discloses a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 41542/13

  E.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  This is all the more true when the processing affects highly intimate and sensitive categories of information, notably information relating to the physical or mental health of an identifiable individual (see, in particular, Z. v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016, Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 70, 26 January 2017 and P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 26, 26 May 2020).