Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  NERSESYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  As regards the applicant's complaint about the lack of access to the Supreme Court, the Court recalls that the same issue has already been examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and was found to have been compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kadagishvili v. Georgia, no. 12391/06, § 175, 14 May 2020; Kobiashvili, cited above, § 76; Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30742/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014).
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  WNUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 40109/03

  JACZKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  As regards the applicant's complaint about the lack of access to the Supreme Court, the Court recalls that the same issue has already been examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and was found to have been compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kadagishvili v. Georgia, no. 12391/06, § 175, 14 May 2020; Kobiashvili, cited above, § 76; Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30742/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  KUKKONEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  For an interference with an applicant's "home" or his or her "private life" to be in compliance with Article 8 it must be "in accordance with the law", undertaken in pursuit of a "legitimate aim", and "necessary in a democratic society" (see, for example, Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, § 167, 24 January 2017; Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 227, ECHR 2015; Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, no. 26419/10, § 40, 18 April 2013; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 130, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  The relevant general principles as far as the fairness of proceedings is concerned in relation to the use of evidence obtained in violation of Article 8 of the Convention were summarised by the Court in the case of Bykov v. Russia ([GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88-93, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  The Court has already found in the particular circumstances of various cases that the fact that domestic courts had relied on evidence which had been deemed to have been unlawfully obtained for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention did not conflict with the requirements of fairness enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Bykov, cited above, §§ 94-98; see also Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 76-81, ECHR 2001-IX; Valentino Acatrinei v. Romania, no. 18540/04, §§ 73-77, 25 June 2013; and Hambardzumyan, cited above, §§ 78-81).
• EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 7215/10

  Zum Begriff des fairen Verfahrens und der Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung nach Art. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  While no problem of fairness necessarily arises where the evidence obtained was unsupported by other material, it may be noted that where the evidence is very strong and there is no risk of its being unreliable, the need for supporting evidence is correspondingly weaker (see ibid. § 90; see also Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, § 49, 25 February 2010; Gäfgen v. Germany ([GC], no. 22978/05, § 162-165, ECHR 2010; Prade v. Germany, no. 7215/10, § 33-34, 3 March 2016, and Kobiashvili, cited above, §§ 56-58).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 26419/10

  SAINT-PAUL LUXEMBOURG S.A. c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 4261/04

  MISAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 51693/13

  MODESTOU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 29.08.2000 - 40490/98

  JAHNKE and LENOBLE v. FRANCE

• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  STRAISTEANU AND AGACHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court further reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" as used in the second paragraph of Article 8 requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 228-230, ECHR 2015, with further references, and Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, § 50, 18 March 2021).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 69148/16

  KARIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 23 November 2016 and it does not therefore comply with the six-month rule (compare Sadigov, cited above, §§ 22-25, and Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, § 46, 18 March 2021).