Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SURIKOV v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 16428/05

  GARDEL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  In particular, drawing from that Convention, the Court has stated that the domestic law of the member States should notably ensure that personal data in issue are relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are being collected or stored; that they are preserved in a form which permits identification of the data subjects for no longer than is required for the purpose for which those data are stored and that the retained data are efficiently protected from misuse and abuse (see, among other authorities, Gardel v. France, no. 16428/05, § 62, ECHR 2009).

  [12] Gardel v. France, no. 16428/05, §§ 69-70, 17 December 2009.

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  On numerous occasions the Court has held that systematic storage and other use of information relating to an individual's private life by public authorities entails important implications for the interests protected by Article 8 of the Convention and thus amounts to interference with the relevant rights (see, in particular, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008).

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, 4 December 2008 (retention of fingerprints and DNA information in cases where the defendant in criminal proceedings is acquitted or discharged); M.N. and Others v. San Marino, cited above, § 72 (information retrieved from banking documents copied and stored without safeguards); Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82 (interception of communications and "metering" of telephones by or on behalf of the police); Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V (gathering, recording and archiving in secret files of information affecting national security without laying down limits on the exercise of those powers, which remained at the discretion of the authorities.); and Amann, cited above, § 56 (interception of a business-related telephone call to the applicant, an investigation of the applicant based on that call and the creation of a card on the applicant for the national security card index.).

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  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, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  On numerous occasions the Court has held that systematic storage and other use of information relating to an individual's private life by public authorities entails important implications for the interests protected by Article 8 of the Convention and thus amounts to interference with the relevant rights (see, in particular, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008).

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, 4 December 2008 (retention of fingerprints and DNA information in cases where the defendant in criminal proceedings is acquitted or discharged); M.N. and Others v. San Marino, cited above, § 72 (information retrieved from banking documents copied and stored without safeguards); Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82 (interception of communications and "metering" of telephones by or on behalf of the police); Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V (gathering, recording and archiving in secret files of information affecting national security without laying down limits on the exercise of those powers, which remained at the discretion of the authorities.); and Amann, cited above, § 56 (interception of a business-related telephone call to the applicant, an investigation of the applicant based on that call and the creation of a card on the applicant for the national security card index.).

• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  [14] L.H. v. Latvia, cited above, § 50; S. and Marper, cited above, § 99; Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 33 and 35, Series A no. 176-A; Rotaru v. Romania, cited above, §§ 57-59; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 75-77, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, §§ 62-63, 1 July 2008.
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, 4 December 2008 (retention of fingerprints and DNA information in cases where the defendant in criminal proceedings is acquitted or discharged); M.N. and Others v. San Marino, cited above, § 72 (information retrieved from banking documents copied and stored without safeguards); Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82 (interception of communications and "metering" of telephones by or on behalf of the police); Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V (gathering, recording and archiving in secret files of information affecting national security without laying down limits on the exercise of those powers, which remained at the discretion of the authorities.); and Amann, cited above, § 56 (interception of a business-related telephone call to the applicant, an investigation of the applicant based on that call and the creation of a card on the applicant for the national security card index.).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  [14] L.H. v. Latvia, cited above, § 50; S. and Marper, cited above, § 99; Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 33 and 35, Series A no. 176-A; Rotaru v. Romania, cited above, §§ 57-59; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 75-77, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, §§ 62-63, 1 July 2008.
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  [14] L.H. v. Latvia, cited above, § 50; S. and Marper, cited above, § 99; Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 33 and 35, Series A no. 176-A; Rotaru v. Romania, cited above, §§ 57-59; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 75-77, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, §§ 62-63, 1 July 2008.
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  [14] L.H. v. Latvia, cited above, § 50; S. and Marper, cited above, § 99; Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 33 and 35, Series A no. 176-A; Rotaru v. Romania, cited above, §§ 57-59; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 75-77, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, §§ 62-63, 1 July 2008.
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 20511/03

  I v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  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).
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 37119/97

  N.F. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 62617/00

  Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte schützt private Nutzung des Internets
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"

• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13

  M.K. v. UKRAINE

  The Court previously recognised that employers may have a legitimate interest in information concerning their employees" physical health, particularly in the context of assigning them certain job functions connected to specific skills, responsibilities or competences, but underlined that collection and processing of the relevant information must be lawful and such as to strike a fair balance between the employer's interests and the privacy-related concerns of the candidate for the relevant position (see Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 91, 26 January 2017).

  [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, 09.03.2023 - 36345/16

  L.B. v. HUNGARY

  Ainsi, dans certains cas, la Cour a conclu qu'un droit étendu à la divulgation et à l'utilisation de données à caractère personnel à des fins dépourvues de lien avec les raisons ayant initialement motivé leur collecte constituaient une atteinte disproportionnée au droit du requérant au respect de sa vie privée (Karabeyoglu c. Turquie, no 30083/10, § 118, 7 juin 2016, et Surikov c. Ukraine, no 42788/06, § 89, 26 janvier 2017).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  MOCKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  Disclosure of such information falls therefore within the ambit of Article 8 (see, more recently, Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 75, 26 January 2017).

 
• 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, 13.10.2020 - 69356/13

  FRÂNCU c. ROUMANIE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle que les informations relatives à l'état de santé mentale sont par leur nature des informations extrêmement intimes et sensibles (voir, mutatis mutandis, Mockute, précité, § 94, et Surikov c. Ukraine, no 42788/06, § 75, 26 janvier 2017).
• 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).