Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  N. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Art. 4, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 18, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• BVerfG, 11.10.1978 - 2 BvR 1055/76

  Verfassungsrechtliche Unbedenklichkeit des Ausschlusses einer …

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.12.1986 - 10949/84

  In conformity with a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) (BVerfGE 49, 329 = NJW 79, 154) it held that the applicant lacked a legal interest in the review of the search order after it had been executed.

  In this respect she referred to the Federal Constitutional Court's case-law according to which there is no legal interest to have a search warrant reviewed after it has actually been carried out (BVerfGE 49, 329 and 59, 96).

  The Government, referring to the Federal Constitutional Court's case-law (decision 2BvR 1055/76 of 11 October 1978, BVerfGE 49, 329, 341), submit that judicial search warrants are judicial acts in formal and substantive respects.

  A further judicial examination will nevertheless take place where "substantial consequences of an interference or the risk of repetition - and possibly also the gravity of the legal violation - substantiate a continued interest in judicial examination" (BVerfGE 49, 329, 338).

  The Federal Constitutional Court has held in its decisions (BVerfGE 49, 329, 340 with further references) that acts of the judiciary are not acts of a public authority in the above sense, for Article 19 para.

• BVerfG, 04.02.1975 - 2 BvL 5/74

  Zweckentfremdung von Wohnraum

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.12.1986 - 10949/84

  This was established in a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 4 February 1975 (BVerfGE 38, 348).

  In its decision of 4 February 1975 quoted by the Government (BVerfGE 38, 348, 365) the court expressly stated this and added that the owner has in principle the right to determine himself how much room he will use for his own residential purposes, because this does not affect the designation of the object as serving residential purposes.

• BVerfG, 16.06.1981 - 1 BvR 1094/80

  Zwangsvollstreckung II

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.12.1986 - 10949/84

  The Government refer to a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 16 June 1981 (BVerfGE 57, 346, 354) according to which "it would not accord with the importance of the basic right under Article 13 of the Basic Law if the right to lodge a complaint of unconstitutionality against searches of residential premises ceased to apply - without more - as soon as the search is concluded".

  The judge has to take a decision on this in each case and in the exercise of his judicial discretion (BVerfGE 57, 346, 359).

• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.12.1986 - 10949/84

  Regulatory proceedings must be considered as criminal proceedings for the purposes of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R. Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73), and therefore the search also pursued a legitimate aim covered by Article 8 para.

• EKMR, 11.10.1988 - 12474/86

  KANTHAK v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  The Commission finds that an issue under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention could arise if the case-law of the German courts according to which the legal interest in having a search reviewed which was already carried out is applied in such a way as to exclude any examination of the lawfulness and substantive justification of the search in question (cf. No. 10949/84, Dec. 10.12.86, to be published in D.R.).