Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55299) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98
P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09
The absence of a statutory power founded a violation of this aspect of Article 8 in P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom (no. 44787/98, § 62, ECHR 2001-IX). - EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 31827/96
Verstoß gegen die Grundsätze des fairen Verfahrens wegen des Zwangs der Vorlegung …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09
Finally, and as to the applicant's complaint that the "ruse" used by the police to obtain the sample infringed the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court has previously found that that privilege does not apply to blood or other physical or objective specimens used in forensic analysis (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, § 69, Reports 1996-VI; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 68, ECHR 2001-III; and P.G. and J.H., cited above, § 80). - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09
Moreover, a blanket power of indefinite retention of samples was a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private life (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008). - EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09
Compliance with the law was of the utmost importance for a criminal trial (the dissenting judgments in Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V and in Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140). - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09
Moreover, a blanket power of indefinite retention of samples was a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private life (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008).