Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 8 - Right ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (38)

• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  This is of particular relevance as the contemporaneous provision of reasons is a vital safeguard against abusive surveillance (see Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 88-101, 15 January 2015; Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 97-98, 7 November 2017; and Liblik and Others v. Estonia, nos. 173/15 and 5 others, §§ 137-41, 28 May 2019).

  Nor does the instruction lay down enough safeguards with respect to materials obtained as a result of accidentally intercepted lawyer-client communications (see, mutatis mutandis, R.E. v. the United Kingdom, no. 62498/11, §§ 138-41, 27 October 2015, and Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, § 107, 7 November 2017).

• EuGH, 21.12.2016 - C-203/15

  Die Mitgliedstaaten dürfen den Betreibern elektronischer Kommunikationsdienste …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  CJEU CASE-LAW ON ARTICLE 15 § 1 OF THE E-PRIVACY DIRECTIVE 240. In a judgment of 21 December 2016 (Tele2 Sverige and Watson and Others, C-203/15 and C-698/15, EU:C:2016:970), given pursuant to preliminary references by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm, Sweden, and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the CJEU held that national legislation providing for the general retention of all traffic and location data for the purpose of fighting crime was impermissible under Article 15 § 1 of the E-Privacy Directive (see paragraph 230 above).
• EuGH, 08.04.2014 - C-293/12

  Der Gerichtshof erklärt die Richtlinie über die Vorratsspeicherung von Daten für …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  In a judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland and Others (C-293/12 and C-594/12, EU:C:2014:238) the CJEU held that Directive invalid as a whole, on the basis that it required a disproportionate interference with the rights to respect for private life and communications, protected under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with the right to right to protection of personal data under Article 8 of the Charter.

 
• EuGH, 06.10.2020 - C-511/18

  Rechtsangleichung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  In a judgment of 6 October 2020 (La Quadrature du Net and Others, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, EU:C:2020:791), given pursuant to preliminary references by the French Council of State and the Belgian Constitutional Court, the CJEU, among other things, confirmed its position in Tele2 Sverige and Watson and Others (see paragraph 240 above) that Article 15 § 1 of the E-Privacy Directive precluded the general retention of traffic and location data for the purpose of fighting serious crime, and held that this provision permitted solely a targeted retention of such data, limited on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory factors.
• EuGH, 06.10.2020 - C-623/17

  Datenschutz: Vorratsdatenspeicherung nicht zulässig, aber ...

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  In another judgment of 6 October 2020 (Privacy International, C-623/17, EU:C:2020:790), given pursuant to a preliminary reference by the United Kingdom's Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the CJEU held, among other things, that Article 15 § 1 of the E-Privacy Directive precluded legislation enabling an authority to require communications service providers to carry out a general transmission of traffic and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 50001/12

  Prepaidkarten: Anonymität wird zum Fall für den Menschengerichtshof

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  It is settled that the mere storing of data relating to someone's private life amounts to interference with that individual's right to respect for his or her "private life" (see, with respect to personal data relating to the use of communications services, Breyer v. Germany, no. 50001/12, § 81, 30 January 2020; Centrum för rättvisa, cited above, § 244, and Big Brother Watch and Others, cited above, § 330).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  As already noted in paragraph 267 above, the National Bureau must notify someone who has been placed under secret surveillance only if that has happened unlawfully, whereas under the Court's case-law such notification is, in the absence of a remedy available without prior notification, required in all cases, as soon as it can be made without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 58, Series A no. 28; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XI; and, more recently, Roman Zakharov, cited above, § 287).
• EuGH, 02.03.2021 - C-746/18

  Grenzen für Vorratsdatenspeicherung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  In a judgment of 2 March 2021 (Prokuratuur, C-746/18, EU:C:2021:152), given pursuant to a preliminary reference by the Supreme Court of Estonia, the CJEU reiterated that Article 15 § 1 of the E-Privacy Directive permitted access to retained traffic or location data for the purpose of fighting crime only when it came to serious crime or serious threats to public security, regardless of the length of the period in respect of which access was sought and the quantity or nature of the data available in respect of that period.
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  As already noted in paragraph 267 above, the National Bureau must notify someone who has been placed under secret surveillance only if that has happened unlawfully, whereas under the Court's case-law such notification is, in the absence of a remedy available without prior notification, required in all cases, as soon as it can be made without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 58, Series A no. 28; Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XI; and, more recently, Roman Zakharov, cited above, § 287).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  In the light of the Court's case-law (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 307, ECHR 2015), the complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 8 of the Convention, which provides, so far as relevant:.
• EuGH, 02.10.2018 - C-207/16

  Zugang zu Telekommunikationsdaten auch bei Diebstahlsverdacht vom SIM-Karten
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EuGH, 01.02.2016 - C-698/15

  Davis u.a.
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 12726/87

  AUTRONIC AG v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

  GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.01.2020 - C-520/18

  Ordre des barreaux francophones und germanophone u.a. - Vorlage zur …
• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  HARKINS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  RINGLER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 31446/12

  BEN FAIZA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

  ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11

  TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 3599/10

  TRETTER AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  KONSTANTIN MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 173/15

  LIBLIK AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 53626/14

  HARIZANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  V.D. v. CROATIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 27473/06

  MUSTAFA SEZGIN TANRIKULU v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 34584/18 (anhängig)

  GATEV v. BULGARIA

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

  BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Moreover, the application of the relevant data protection rules in Bulgaria to criminal record data appears to throw up novel issues with which the Bulgarian authorities are yet to fully grapple, especially since the overhaul of that branch of Bulgarian law following the entry into force of the GDPR and the transposition of the LED (see, mutatis mutandis, Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, § 275, 11 January 2022).
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 19920/20

  SKOBERNE v. SLOVENIA

  In respect of the General Data Protection Directive and the Law-Enforcement Directive, see Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, §§ 234-39, 11 January 2022.

  The Court has already established that subscriber, traffic and location data can relate - alone or in combination - to the "private life" of those concerned (see Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, § 372, 11 January 2022).

• EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-349/21

  Eine Entscheidung zur Genehmigung der Telefonüberwachung muss keine …

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat allerdings in Bezug auf zwei Urteile des Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Spezialisiertes Strafgericht) anerkannt, dass das Fehlen individualisierter Gründe nicht automatisch zu der Schlussfolgerung führen kann, der die Genehmigung erteilende Richter habe den Antrag nicht ordnungsgemäß geprüft (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteil vom 11. Januar 2022, Ekimdzhiev u. a./Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2022:0111JUD007007812, §§ 313 und 314 sowie die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.10.2022 - C-349/21

  HYA u.a. (Motivation des autorisations des écoutes téléphoniques) - Vorlage zur …

  16 EGMR, 11. Januar 2022, Ekimdzhiev u. a./Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2022:0111JUD007007812).

  17 EGMR, 11. Januar 2022, Ekimdzhiev u. a./Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2022:0111JUD007007812, §§ 313 bis 321).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  The most recent approach taken by the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation on the issue contrasts starkly with the approach it took several years earlier regarding the possibility of collateral review in civil proceedings of decisions by the criminal courts to authorise secret surveillance (see Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, §§ 138 (f) and 272, 11 January 2022).
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 33696/19

  PODCHASOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court finds that the storage by the applicant's ICO of the contents of all his Internet communications and related communications data interfered with his right to respect for his private life and correspondence (see paragraph 19 above for the domestic provisions; compare Breyer v. Germany, no. 50001/12, § 81, 30 January 2020, and Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, §§ 372 and 373, 11 January 2022).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 46564/15

  KORPORATIVNA TARGOVSKA BANKA AD v. BULGARIA

  Furthermore, it follows from the Convention, and from its Article 1 in particular, that in ratifying the Convention and its Protocols the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic law is compatible with them (see, among other authorities, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 311, ECHR 2015; and Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, § 427, 11 January 2022).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 56070/18

  STOYANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Furthermore, it follows from the Convention, and from its Article 1 in particular, that in ratifying the Convention and its Protocols the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic law is compatible with them (see, among other authorities, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 311, ECHR 2015; and Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, § 427, 11 January 2022).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 27237/19

  KYIVSTAR, PAT v. UKRAINE

  Nor could the requirement to disclose the data in question reasonably have resulted in any harm to the applicant company's reputation, since it concerned the authorities' lawful exercise of their statutory powers to access private data for legitimate aims (see, among many other authorities, Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, §§ 234 and 239, 11 January 2022, and Breyer, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 43467/06

  AYKHAN AKHUNDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION 118. Under Article 46 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a duty to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be taken in its domestic legal order to end the violation and make all feasible reparation for its consequences by restoring as far as possible the situation which would have obtained if it had not taken place (see, among other authorities, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 311, ECHR 2015; and Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, § 427, 11 January 2022).
• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 8243/15

  PARTI POLITIQUE 'PATRIA' c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR - 37659/22 (anhängig)

  KOUKAKIS v. GREECE
• EGMR - 3699/20 (anhängig)

  FASANO v. ITALY