Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1990,14776
EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85 (https://dejure.org/1990,14776)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.04.1990 - 11801/85 (https://dejure.org/1990,14776)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. April 1990 - 11801/85 (https://dejure.org/1990,14776)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1990,14776) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 8 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KRUSLIN v. FRANCE

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (186)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

    MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    The telephone tapping therefore amounted to an "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his "correspondence" and his "private life" (see the Klass and Others judgment of 8 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 41, and the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 30, § 64).

    Like the Government and the Delegate, the Court points out, firstly, that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, the Malone judgment previously cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, § 79, and the Eriksson judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 25, § 62).

    Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity... to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference." (Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, §§ 67-68).

    This was truer still at the material time, so that Mr Kruslin did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (see the Malone judgment previously cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, § 79).

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    Admittedly the Court had held that "the word "law" in the expression "prescribed by law" cover[ed] not only statute but also unwritten law" (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47, the Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 44, and the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152, p. 22, § 52), but in those instances the Court was, so the Delegate maintained, thinking only of the common-law system.

    Were it to overlook case-law, the Court would undermine the legal system of the Continental States almost as much as the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979 would have "struck at the very roots" of the United Kingdom's legal system if it had excluded the common law from the concept of "law" (Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47).

  • EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

    ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    Like the Government and the Delegate, the Court points out, firstly, that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, the Malone judgment previously cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, § 79, and the Eriksson judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 25, § 62).
     
  • EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

    MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    The Court has indeed taken account of case-law in such countries on more than one occasion (see, in particular, the Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 20, § 29, the Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141, pp. 16-17, § 29, and the Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, pp. 18-19, § 30).
  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

    CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    Admittedly the Court had held that "the word "law" in the expression "prescribed by law" cover[ed] not only statute but also unwritten law" (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47, the Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 44, and the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152, p. 22, § 52), but in those instances the Court was, so the Delegate maintained, thinking only of the common-law system.
  • EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

    MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    The Court has indeed taken account of case-law in such countries on more than one occasion (see, in particular, the Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 20, § 29, the Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141, pp. 16-17, § 29, and the Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, pp. 18-19, § 30).
  • EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

    DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    Admittedly the Court had held that "the word "law" in the expression "prescribed by law" cover[ed] not only statute but also unwritten law" (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47, the Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 44, and the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152, p. 22, § 52), but in those instances the Court was, so the Delegate maintained, thinking only of the common-law system.
  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

    HUVIG c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    [ï?ª] Note by the Registrar: Case no. 4/1989/164/220.
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    ... [In its judgment of 25 March 1983 in the case of Silver and Others the Court] held that "a law which confers a discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion", although the detailed procedures and conditions to be observed do not necessarily have to be incorporated in rules of substantive law (ibid., Series A no. 61, pp. 33-34, §§ 88-89).
  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
    The telephone tapping therefore amounted to an "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his "correspondence" and his "private life" (see the Klass and Others judgment of 8 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 41, and the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 30, § 64).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2008 - 34503/97

    Demir und Baykara ./. Türkei - Streikrecht für Beamte

    For the purposes of the Convention the term "law" covers both enactments and the interpretation thereof by the courts (Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A), such that divergences in case-law create uncertainty and a lack of foreseeability that are capable of raising doubt as to the legality of an interference with a Convention right (see Driha v. Romania, no. 29556/02, § 32, 21 February 2008; and Paduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, § 98, ECHR 2005-XII).
  • EGMR, 13.09.2018 - 58170/13

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

    These safeguards, which were first set out in Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, § 34, Series A no. 176 B and Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 35, Series A no. 176-A, had been applied routinely by the Court in its caselaw on the interception of communications and in two cases specifically concerning the bulk interception of communications (see Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006XI and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 35623/05

    Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens (Datenschutz; GPS-Überwachung; Observation; …

    Nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshof bedeutet der Ausdruck "gesetzlich vorgesehen" nach Artikel 8 Abs. 2 zunächst, dass die Maßnahme eine gewisse innerstaatliche Rechtsgrundlage haben muss; er betrifft auch die Qualität des in Rede gestellten Gesetzes und setzt voraus, dass die betroffene Person Zugang zu dem Gesetz hat und darüber hinaus erkennen kann, welche Folgen es für sie hat; außerdem muss das Gesetz rechtsstaatlichen Anforderungen genügen (siehe u. a. Rechtssachen Kruslin ./. Frankreich, 24. April 1990, Randnr. 27, Serie A Band 176-A;… Lambert, a. a. O., Randnr. 23;… und Perry ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, a. a. O., Randnr. 45).
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