Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 45330/99

  S.L. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  It recalls that the concept of "private life" is a broad one and includes an individual's sexual life (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45; S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, ECHR 2003-I), although the Court has observed that not every sexual activity carried out behind closed doors would necessarily fall within the scope of Article 8 (see Laskey, Jaggard and Brown, cited above, § 36).

  In these circumstances, the Court is prepared to accept that the sexual activities at issue fell within the meaning of "private life" (see, mutatis mutandis, S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, ECHR 2003-I).

• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  This proposition, he argued, found support in Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A.

  Moreover, Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 do not prevent domestic criminal law from providing for presumptions of fact or law to be drawn from elements proved by the prosecution, thereby absolving the prosecution from having to establish separately all the elements of the offence, provided such presumptions remain within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence (see, by way of example, Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A; Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, ECHR 2004-II; Hardy v. Ireland (dec.), no. 23456/94, 29 June 1994; see also, mutatis mutandis, H. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15023/89, 4 April 1990).

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35765/97

  A.D.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  Thus, where the activities at stake involve an intimate aspect of private life, the margin allowed to the State is generally narrow (see, mutatis mutandis, Dudgeon, cited above, § 52; and A.D.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35765/97, § 37, ECHR 2000-IX).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  The Court has found that the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation as regards the means to ensure adequate protection against rape (M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 154, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EKMR, 04.04.1990 - 15023/89

  H. v. UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  Moreover, Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 do not prevent domestic criminal law from providing for presumptions of fact or law to be drawn from elements proved by the prosecution, thereby absolving the prosecution from having to establish separately all the elements of the offence, provided such presumptions remain within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence (see, by way of example, Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A; Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, ECHR 2004-II; Hardy v. Ireland (dec.), no. 23456/94, 29 June 1994; see also, mutatis mutandis, H. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15023/89, 4 April 1990).
• EKMR, 29.06.1994 - 23456/94

  HARDY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  Moreover, Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 do not prevent domestic criminal law from providing for presumptions of fact or law to be drawn from elements proved by the prosecution, thereby absolving the prosecution from having to establish separately all the elements of the offence, provided such presumptions remain within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence (see, by way of example, Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A; Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, ECHR 2004-II; Hardy v. Ireland (dec.), no. 23456/94, 29 June 1994; see also, mutatis mutandis, H. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15023/89, 4 April 1990).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  It recalls that the concept of "private life" is a broad one and includes an individual's sexual life (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45; S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, ECHR 2003-I), although the Court has observed that not every sexual activity carried out behind closed doors would necessarily fall within the scope of Article 8 (see Laskey, Jaggard and Brown, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  It is not the Court's role under Article 6 §§ 1 or 2 to dictate the content of domestic criminal law, including whether or not a blameworthy state of mind should be one of the elements of the offence or whether there should be any particular defence available to the accused (see Salabiaku, cited above, § 27; see, mutatis mutandis, Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 24, ECHR 2004-II; see also, with reference to the content of substantive civil rights and obligations, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 87, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 26.03.1985 - 8978/80

  X AND Y v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 37334/08

  The concept of private life also covers the physical and moral integrity of the person, respect for which the state may be required to secure through its domestic law (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, no. 8978/80, § 22, 26 March 1985).

• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 28055/08

  MUGHAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court recalls that a person's right in a criminal case to be presumed innocent and to require the prosecution to bear the onus of proving the allegations against him or her forms part of the general notion of a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 (see G. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37334/08, 30 August 2011).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50936/12

  M.D. v. IRELAND

  The Court recalls that in a previous case involving the conviction of a boy aged fifteen for having sexual intercourse with a girl aged twelve, it was prepared to accept in the circumstances of that case that the sexual activities at issue fell within the scope of "private life" (see G. United Kingdom, no. 37334/08, § 35, decision of 30 August 2011).