Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,25753) 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
LAMBERT v. FRANCE
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
Violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LAMBERT c. FRANCE
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
Violation de l'art. 8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 02.09.1996 - 23618/94
- EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
The Court points out that as telephone conversations are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" within the meaning of Article 8, the admitted measure of interception amounted to "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of a right secured to the applicant in paragraph 1 of that Article (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 30, § 64; Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A and B, p. 20, § 26, and p. 52, § 25; Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, pp. 1016-17, § 48; and Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 540, § 53). - EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
When considering the necessity of interference, the Court stated in its Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978 (Series A no. 28, pp. 23 and 25-26, §§ 50, 54 and 55):. - EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
The Court points out that as telephone conversations are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" within the meaning of Article 8, the admitted measure of interception amounted to "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of a right secured to the applicant in paragraph 1 of that Article (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 30, § 64; Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A and B, p. 20, § 26, and p. 52, § 25; Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, pp. 1016-17, § 48; and Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 540, § 53). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
Under the Court's settled case-law, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the existence and extent of such necessity, but this margin is subject to European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court (see, mutatis mutandis, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 37-38, § 97, and the Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28). - EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85
BARFOD c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
Under the Court's settled case-law, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the existence and extent of such necessity, but this margin is subject to European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court (see, mutatis mutandis, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 37-38, § 97, and the Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28).