Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28630/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1997,26558) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 06.03.1989 - 12592/86
c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28630/95
The Commission does not have to examine in the present case, whether Article 8 (Art. 8), sets up a safeguard against a search and seizure concerning a legal person, such as the applicant bank (cf. No. 12592/86, Dec. 6.3.89, D.R. 60, p. 201 at p. 203 where the question whether the search of a bank's premises affected its "home" within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) was also left open), since the complaint is in any case inadmissible for the following reasons.1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention as regards the applicant bank (No. 12592/86, Dec. 6.3.89, loc. cit.).
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88
NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28630/95
It determining whether the measures complained of were "necessary in a democratic society", the Commission will consider whether in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify them were relevant and sufficient and whether the measures were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Eur. Court HR, Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 35-36, para. 37). - EKMR, 05.02.1990 - 11724/85
MENDES GODINHO E FILHOS c. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28630/95
As to the applicant bank's complaint that the lifting of banker's duty of confidentiality interfered with the private life of its customers, the Commission recalls that, under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, an applicant cannot claim to be the victim of a breach of the rights or freedoms protected by the Convention unless there is a sufficiently direct connection between the applicant and the injury he maintains he suffered as a result of the alleged breach (cf. No. 11724/85, Dec. 5.2.90, D.R. 64, p. 72). - EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28630/95
The Commission, recalling that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, finds no reason to depart from the Review Chamber's finding (Eur. Court HR, Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 21, para. 29). - EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28630/95
In any event, the applicant bank itself has not made out a case that it had any private life which fell within the protection of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention or with which there had been any interference (see mutatis mutandis, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, Comm. Report 7.3.91, para. 64, Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 246-A, p. 61).