Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MULDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 23231/94

  Furthermore, referring to the Niemietz case (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B), the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the tapping of his telephones was a disproportionate interference with his professional obligation to secrecy.

  The Commission observes that the present case differs from the Niemietz case to which the applicant has referred (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B) in that the applicant in the present case was himself suspected of criminal offences.

• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 23231/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (Eur. Court H.R., Hauschildt case, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21 para. 46; Eur. Court H.R., Padovani case, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20 para. 25).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 23231/94

  1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Huvig judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 52 para. 25; and No. 10862/84, Dec. 6.3.86, D.R. 46 pp. 136-137).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 23231/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (Eur. Court H.R., Hauschildt case, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21 para. 46; Eur. Court H.R., Padovani case, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20 para. 25).

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  The Court stresses that legal professionals are not immune from searches, seizures, wiretapping, etc. (see, in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, Mulders v. the Netherlands (no. 23231/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995; and B.R. v Germany, no. 26722/95, Commission decision of 23 October 1997; see also Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).