Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AALMOES AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 16269/02

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 13 does not go so far as to require a remedy whereby the laws of a Contracting State may be impugned before a national authority as being in themselves contrary to the Convention (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, p. 39, § 90) and that it has consistently interpreted Article 13 as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 112, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 16269/02

  Given that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see Lacko and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47237/99, 2 July 2002), the Court considers that the above elements - taken together - provided the applicants with an effective remedy (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, pp. 29-30, § 77).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 16269/02

  Article 34 may not be used to found an action in the nature of an actio popularis; nor may it form the basis of a claim made in abstracto that a law contravenes the Convention (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, pp. 17-18, § 33).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 16269/02

  On the basis of, inter alia, the Court's findings in the cases of Kruslin and Huvig v. France (judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A and B) as regards the possibility of inspection by the judge and by the defence, the official records and transcripts of tapped telephone conversations were not destroyed immediately but were kept until shortly after the closure of the case.
• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 16269/02

  The Court recalls that the notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

  ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

  While it may be open to doubt whether, being such a person, it can have a "private life" within the meaning of that provision, it can be said that its mail and other communications, which are in issue in the present case, are covered by the notion of "correspondence" which applies equally to communications originating from private and business premises (see Halford, cited above, p. 1016, § 44; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; and Weber and Saravia, cited above, § 77, with further references).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  DRAKSAS v. LITHUANIA

  [7] The European standard has been established in Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28.
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 42785/11

  DEVECI c. TÜRKIYE

  À la lumière de ce qui précède, la Cour conclut que dans les circonstances de l'espèce, l'ingérence dans le droit du requérant consacré par l'article 8 § 1 de la Convention était nécessaire, dans une société démocratique, à la protection de la sécurité nationale, à la défense de l'ordre et à la prévention des crimes, telles que prévues par l'article 8 § 2 de la Convention (Aalmoes c. Pays-Bas (déc), no 16269/02, 25 novembre 2004 et Karabeyoglu, précité, § 110).
• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 15391/19

  KULLU c. TÜRKIYE

  À la lumière de ce qui précède, la Cour conclut que dans les circonstances de l'espèce, l'ingérence dans le droit du requérant consacré par l'article 8 § 1 de la Convention était nécessaire, dans une société démocratique, à la protection de la sécurité nationale, à la défense de l'ordre et à la prévention des infractions pénales, telles que prévues par l'article 8 § 2 de la Convention (voir également Aalmoes et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc), no 16269/02, 25 novembre 2004, et Karabeyoglu, précité, § 110).