Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DRAKSAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Respect for private life) No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Violation of ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)

  Geleakte Aufzeichnung einer Telefonüberwachung als Verletzung des Art 8 EMRK

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Veröffentlichung eines abgehörten Telefonats verletzt Art. 8 EMRK

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 36662/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which telephone conversations, although they are not expressly mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention, are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" referred to by this provision (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 41, Series A no. 28, and Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 44, ECHR 2000-II).

  [7] The European standard has been established in Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28.

• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 16269/02

  AALMOES AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  [7] The European standard has been established in Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28.
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  [7] The European standard has been established in Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28.

 
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

  ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  [7] The European standard has been established in Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28.
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02

  IORDACHI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  [7] The European standard has been established in Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28.
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98

  Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  Moreover, in contrast to Odièvre v. France ([GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III), those conversations had not disclosed any information of a private nature; therefore, the applicant did not have a right to have access to such information either under the domestic law or the Convention.
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 1914/02

  DUPUIS AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  [2] The Court has repeatedly accepted the disclosure of information from pending secret criminal investigations, for example in Pinto Coelho v. Portugal, no. 28439/08, 28 June 2011; Laranjeira Marques da Silva v. Portugal, no. 16983/06, 19 January 2010; Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal, no. 17107/05, 24 April 2008; Dupuis and Others v. France, no. 1914/02, 7 June 2007; and Du Roy and Malaurie v. France, no. 34000/96, ECHR 2000-X.
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which telephone conversations, although they are not expressly mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention, are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" referred to by this provision (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 41, Series A no. 28, and Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 44, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  In particular, the requirement of foreseeability cannot mean that an individual should be enabled to foresee when the authorities are likely to intercept his communications so that he can adapt his conduct accordingly (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 67, Series A no. 82).
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  THOMPSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  In my opinion, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, any damage which allegedly could have been suffered by the applicant would be sufficiently compensated for by its finding of a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 47-49, ECHR 2000-X; Thompson v. the United Kingdom, no. 36256/97, 15 June 2004; and Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 42, Series A no. 151).
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 28439/08

  PINTO COELHO c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 17107/05

  CAMPOS DAMASO c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE