Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.T. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  The Court also reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government pleading non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, in particular, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008).

 
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  The Court also reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government pleading non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, in particular, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  SURIKOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  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, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  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, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

  Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

  69234/11 and 2 others, § 80, 11 February 2016; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 193-199, 23 February 2016; Bir?¾ietis v. Lithuania, no. 49304/09, § 58, 14 June 2016; Kry?¾evicius v. Lithuania, no. 67816/14, §§ 67-70, 11 December 2018; P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, §§ 29-33, 26 May 2020; and Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 68817/14, §§ 152-159, 16 July 2020).
• 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).

  While the conclusion in the preceding paragraph is sufficient for the Court to find a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, it cannot but mention that the Government did not make any submissions as to which "legitimate aim" could have been pursued by disclosing the applicant's medical information to the public (see P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 29, 26 May 2020), nor as to why such a disclosure was "necessary in a democratic society".

• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13

  M.K. v. UKRAINE

  [4] Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997, § 96; Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011, § 64; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, 25 November 2008, § 40; Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, 25 November 2008, § 39; I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, 17 July 2008, § 38; C.C. v. Spain, no. 1425/06, 6 October 2009, § 33; P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, 26 May 2020, §§ 5-6, 26.