Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine under Art. 6 Not necessary to examine under Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (one applicant) Finding of violation sufficient (others) Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 50882/99
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  Consequently, "home" is to be construed as including also the registered office of a company run by a private individual, as well as a juristic person's registered office, branches and other business premises (see, inter alia, Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, 28 April 2005, Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, pp. 12-13 and 21-22, §§ 26 and 51; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, §§ 29-31).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

  CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  Consequently, "home" is to be construed as including also the registered office of a company run by a private individual, as well as a juristic person's registered office, branches and other business premises (see, inter alia, Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, 28 April 2005, Chappell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, pp. 12-13 and 21-22, §§ 26 and 51; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, §§ 29-31).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  In a sphere covered by written law, the "law" is the enactment in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Elle s'est ainsi prononcée sur la compatibilité avec cette disposition de perquisitions et saisies effectuées au cabinet ou au domicile d'un avocat (Niemietz, précité ; Roemen et Schmit c. Luxembourg, no 51772/99, CEDH 2003-IV ; Sallinen et autres c. Finlande, no 50882/99, 27 septembre 2005 ; André et autre, précité ; Xavier Da Silveira, précité), de l'interception de la correspondance entre un avocat et son client (Schönenberger et Durmaz c. Suisse, 20 juin 1988, série A no 137), de l'écoute téléphonique d'un avocat (Kopp, précité) et de la fouille et de la saisie de données électroniques dans un cabinet d'avocats (Sallinen et autres et Wieser et Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, précités).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 2872/02

  K.U. v. FINLAND

  Eu égard à sa conclusion sur le terrain de l'article 8, 1a Cour considère qu'il n'est pas nécessaire d'examiner le grief sous l'angle de l'article 13 (voir, notamment, Sallinen et autres c. Finlande, no 50882/99, §§ 102 et 110, 27 septembre 2005, et Copland c. Royaume-Uni, no 62617/00, §§ 50-51, CEDH 2007-(...)).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 74336/01

  Rechtswidrige Durchsuchung einer Anwaltskanzlei zur Erlangung elektronisch …

  The Court reiterates that the search of a lawyer's office has been regarded as interfering with "private life" and "correspondence" and, potentially, home, in the wider sense implied by the French text which uses the term "domicile" (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-35, §§ 29-33, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finnland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005, which confirms that the search of a lawyer's business premises also interfered with his right to respect for his "home").

 
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 63629/10

  VINCI CONSTRUCTION ET GTM GÉNIE CIVIL ET SERVICES c. FRANCE

  Plus précisément, la fouille et la saisie de données électroniques s'analysent en une ingérence dans le droit au respect de la « vie privée'et de la « correspondance'au sens de ces dispositions (voir, entre autres, Sallinen et autres c. Finlande, no 50882/99, § 71, 27 septembre 2005, Weber et Saravia c. Allemagne (déc.), no 54934/00, § 77, 29 juin 2006, Wieser et Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH c. Autriche, no 74336/01, § 43, CEDH 2007-IV, et Robathin c. Autriche, no 30457/06, § 39, 3 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 69436/10

  BRITO FERRINHO BEXIGA VILLA-NOVA c. PORTUGAL

  En outre, dans un domaine couvert par le droit écrit, la « loi'est le texte en vigueur tel que les juridictions compétentes l'ont interprété (Société Colas Est et autres c. France, no 37971/97, § 43, CEDH 2002-III et Sallinen et autres c. Finlande, no 50882/99, § 77, 27 septembre 2005).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including documents and electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including, as in the present case, electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-35, §§ 29-33; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 14704/12

  KIRDÖK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  De plus, le terme « correspondance'recouvre aussi des disques durs informatiques (Petri Sallinen et autres c. Finlande, no 50882/99, § 71, 27 septembre 2005) et des données électroniques, fichiers informatiques et messagerie (en ce qui concerne la fouille et la saisie des données électroniques, Wieser et Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH c. Autriche, no 74336/01, § 66-68, CEDH 2007-IV, Robathin c. Autriche, no 30457/06, § 39, 3 juillet 2012, et Vinci Construction et GTM Génie Civil et Services c. France, nos 63629/10 et 60567/10, §§ 69-70, 2 avril 2015) d'un cabinet d'avocats.
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

  A search of residential and business premises entailing, as here, the seizure of equipment containing electronic data, is an interference with the "private life", "home" and "correspondence" of those concerned (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-31, Series A no. 251-B; Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2005-IV; and Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 33, 15 February 2011, as regards searches in business premises; Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 36, 7 June 2007, as regards the seizure of equipment containing electronic data from a person's home; and Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005; Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV; and Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 8429/05, § 41, 30 September 2014, as regards the seizure of equipment containing electronic data from business premises).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  KOLESNICHENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that during the search there was no safeguard in place against interference with professional secrecy, such as, for example, a prohibition on removing documents covered by lawyer-client privilege or supervision of the search by an independent observer capable of identifying, independently of the investigation team, which documents were covered by legal professional privilege (see Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 89, 27 September 2005, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  CACUCI AND S.C. VIRRA & CONT PAD S.R.L. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 71362/01

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 31702/18

  G.L. AND L.G.P. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 81732/12

  DUYCK c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 30958/13

  LEOTSAKOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  MANCEVSCHI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 2204/11

  ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 5678/06

  YUDITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  GOLOVAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 71064/12

  MOCULSKIS v. LATVIA