Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDRÉ ET AUTRE c. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 8 Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDRÉ AND ANOTHER v. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 18603/03

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that the term "home" appearing in Article 8 may extend to the offices of a member of a profession, for instance a lawyer (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 30, Series A no. 251-B, and Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 64, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  Where, as is the case here, Article 6 § 1 applies, it constitutes a lex specialis in relation to Article 13: the safeguards of Article 6 § 1 implying the full panoply of a judicial procedure, are stricter than, and absorb, those of Article 13 (see, for example, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  Furthermore, the safeguarding of professional secrecy is in particular the corollary of the right of a lawyer's client not to incriminate himself, which presupposes that the authorities seek to prove their case without resorting to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the "person charged" (see J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; see also, among other authorities, Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 44, Series A no. 256-A).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

  Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  The Government submitted that the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention should be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, since tax disputes did not fall within the scope of Article 6 under its civil head (they cited Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001-VII) and since the criminal head was unconnected to the facts of the case.
• EuGH, 26.06.2007 - C-305/05

  DAS RECHT AUF EIN FAIRES VERFAHREN WIRD NICHT DADURCH VERLETZT, DASS …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  In its judgment of 26 June 2007 (Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles against Conseil des ministres, Case C-305/05), the ECJ ruled that the obligations of information and cooperation with the authorities responsible for combating money laundering did not infringe Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the following reasons:.
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 29340/95

  Pflicht zur Erschöpfung innerstaatlicher Rechtsbehelfe vor Anrufung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  Finally, as regards the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Government referred to their arguments in relation to the complaint under Article 8 and their references to domestic law and concluded that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded, all the more so because the Convention did not require a right of appeal, the existence of an appeal on points of law in itself being in conformity with the provisions of Article 13. They also pointed out that the Court had held that an appeal on points of law was a remedy that had to be attempted (citing Civet v. France [GC], no. 29340/95, ECHR 1999-VI); the applicants had therefore used the remedy available to them which had enabled them to argue that there had been errors of law that could have affected the authorisation for the search of their premises and irregularities capable of rendering it void.
• EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 51772/99

  ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that the term "home" appearing in Article 8 may extend to the offices of a member of a profession, for instance a lawyer (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 30, Series A no. 251-B, and Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 64, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 11471/85

  CRÉMIEUX v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  As to whether the interference was "necessary", the Court reiterates that "the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 8 are to be interpreted narrowly and the need for them in a given case must be convincingly established" (see Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 38, Series A no. 256-B, and Roemen and Schmit, cited above, § 68).
• EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 51578/99

  KESLASSY v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 18603/03

  Lastly, they submitted that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society (citing Keslassy v. France (dec.), no. 51578/99, ECHR 2002-I).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.04.2010 - C-550/07

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwältin Juliane Kokott gilt das Anwaltsgeheimnis in …

  35 - In der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte ("EGMR") wird freilich in der Regel allein auf Art. 8 EMRK Bezug genommen; vgl. dazu beispielhaft die Urteile Campbell/Vereinigtes Königreich vom 25. März 1992 (Beschwerde-Nr. 13590/88, Serie A, Nr. 233), Niemietz/Deutschland vom 16. Dezember 1992 (Beschwerde-Nr. 13710/88, Serie A, Nr. 251-B), Foxley/Vereinigtes Königreich vom 20. September 2000 (Beschwerde-Nr. 33274/96), Smirnov/Russland vom 7. Juni 2007 (Beschwerde-Nr. 71362/01) und André u. a./Frankreich vom 24. Juli 2008 (Beschwerde-Nr. 18603/03).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 05.04.2022 - C-694/20

  Orde van Vlaamse Balies u.a.

  Zum Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens vgl. EGMR, 24. Juli 2008, André u. a./Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2008:0724JUD001860303, § 36), und EGMR, 6. Dezember 2012, Michaud/Frankreich, im Folgenden: Urteil Michaud (CE:ECHR:2012:1206JUD001232311, §§ 117 bis 119).