Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PANTELEYENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 11901/02
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court points out that both the storing by a public authority of information relating to an individual's private life and the use of it amount to interference with the right to respect for private life secured in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (cf. Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (cf. Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The existence of such a remedy must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 51772/99

  ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  It suffices for the Court to find that in any event (and this was common ground) the search of the applicant's office amounted to an interference, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, with his right to respect for his home (cf. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, § 30; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 64, ECHR 2003-IV; and Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 109, 15 July 2003).
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

  ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  It suffices for the Court to find that in any event (and this was common ground) the search of the applicant's office amounted to an interference, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, with his right to respect for his home (cf. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, § 30; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 64, ECHR 2003-IV; and Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 109, 15 July 2003).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court recalls that the phrase "in accordance with the law" requires that the measure complained of must have some basis in domestic law (cf. Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 99, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  It suffices for the Court to find that in any event (and this was common ground) the search of the applicant's office amounted to an interference, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, with his right to respect for his home (cf. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, § 30; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 64, ECHR 2003-IV; and Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 109, 15 July 2003).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights that are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (e.g., Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 44, 10 July 2003); that also applies to the right enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 35).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court's case-law establishes that there must be a clear causal link between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (former Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court recalls that, according to its settled case-law, neither Article 6 § 2 nor any other provision of the Convention gives a person "charged with a criminal offence" a right to reimbursement of his costs or a right to compensation for lawful detention on remand where proceedings against him have been discontinued (Narciso Dinares Peñalver v. Spain (dec.), no. 44301/98, 23 March 2000; also Englert v. Germany, judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123-B, § 36, and Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, § 25).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz