Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 50405/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15331) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MALANICHEVA v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 50405/06
It is well-established in the case-law of the Court that storing and sharing data relating to the private life of an individual and, more specifically, personal medical data, amounts to an interference with Article 8 of the Convention and therefore attracts its protection (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008, and L.L. v. France, no. 7508/02, § 32, ECHR 2006-XI). - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 50405/06
It is well-established in the case-law of the Court that storing and sharing data relating to the private life of an individual and, more specifically, personal medical data, amounts to an interference with Article 8 of the Convention and therefore attracts its protection (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008, and L.L. v. France, no. 7508/02, § 32, ECHR 2006-XI). - EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 7508/02
L.L. c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 50405/06
It is well-established in the case-law of the Court that storing and sharing data relating to the private life of an individual and, more specifically, personal medical data, amounts to an interference with Article 8 of the Convention and therefore attracts its protection (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008, and L.L. v. France, no. 7508/02, § 32, ECHR 2006-XI). - EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14461/88
CHAVE nee JULLIEN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 50405/06
Indeed, it has previously been accepted that within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention the recording of information concerning mental patients serves not just the legitimate interest of ensuring the efficient running of the public hospital service, but also that of protecting the rights of the patients themselves (see Yvonne Chave née Jullien v. France (dec.), no. 14461/88, 9 July 1992).