Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (13)
- EKMR, 13.10.1993 - 18291/91
KINNUNEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
This is his second application to the Commission, his first (No. 18291/91) having been declared inadmissible on 13 October 1993.In its decision of 13 October 1993 on the admissibility of Application No. 18291/91 the Commission already dealt with the applicant's grievance that his personal details had been recorded in 1985.
His present complaint is in substance the same as that lodged by him in Application No. 18291/91, i.e. a matter which has already been examined by the Commission.
The Commission furthermore recalls that in its decision of 13 October 1993 on the admissibility of Application No. 18291/91 it rejected a similar complaint, having found that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, a requirement prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
- EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 25099/94
MARTIN contre la SUISSE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
In these circumstances the Commission finds that the retention complained of cannot be considered to amount to an interference with his right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) (cf. Friedl v. Austria, Comm. Report 19.5.94, paras. 49 et seq., Series A no. 305-B, p. 21; No. 25099/94, Dec. 5.4.95, D.R. 81-B pp. 136, 139).Referring to its considerations in point 2 concerning the nature of the retained material and the information concerning the applicant, the Commission considers that the refusal on 29 July 1994 to allow him physical access to various registers and the refusal to send the file with his personal details to him neither amounted to a lack of respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) nor interfered with his right to respect for such private life (cf., mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Gaskin judgment, pp. 15-17, paras. 38-41 and the above-mentioned No. 25099/94, loc.cit., pp. 139- 140).
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83
GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
The present grievance, however, concerns a situation continuing up to July 1994, thus falling within the Commission's competence ratione temporis (cf. No. 10454/83, Dec. 23.1.86, D.R. 45 p. 91; mutatis mutandis, No. 14/56, Dec. 9.6.58, Yearbook 2 pp. 214, 234; cf. also Eur. Court H.R., Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 19, para. 53).1 of that provision (Eur. Court H.R., Gaskin judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, p. 15, para. 37).
- EKMR, 11.10.1988 - 12474/86
KANTHAK v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
The concept of an arguable claim nevertheless falls to be determined having regard to the particular facts of the case and the nature of the legal issues raised (cf. Eur Court H.R., Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, para. 27; No. 12474/86, Dec. 11.10.88, D.R. 58 p. 94). - EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82
Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
The concept of an arguable claim nevertheless falls to be determined having regard to the particular facts of the case and the nature of the legal issues raised (cf. Eur Court H.R., Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, para. 27; No. 12474/86, Dec. 11.10.88, D.R. 58 p. 94). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81
POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
The Commission recalls that, according to the European Court of Human Rights, an applicant, who is found to have no "arguable claim" that another Convention provision has been violated, is not entitled to a remedy under Article 13 (Art. 13) (see, e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Powell and Rayner judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 14-15, paras. 31-33 and p. 20, para. 46). - EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87
SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
2 (Art. 6-2) if a public authority continues to voice suspicions regarding an accused's innocence despite his final acquittal (see, Eur. Court H.R., Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, pp. 14-16, paras. 27-31). - EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92
HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
The present grievance, however, concerns a situation continuing up to July 1994, thus falling within the Commission's competence ratione temporis (cf. No. 10454/83, Dec. 23.1.86, D.R. 45 p. 91; mutatis mutandis, No. 14/56, Dec. 9.6.58, Yearbook 2 pp. 214, 234; cf. also Eur. Court H.R., Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 19, para. 53). - EKMR, 03.05.1993 - 15220/89
S. v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
Moreover, there is no indication that the Department's file or the Register of Personal Details contained any surveillance or similar information in respect of the applicant or any subjective appreciations which he might have wished to refute (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Leander judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 22, para. 48; No. 15220/89, Comm. Report 15.10.93, D.R. 75 p. 30). - EKMR, 30.11.1994 - 20542/92
PAHOR contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 24950/94
It notes that the material retained by the Lahti Police Department consisted of photographs and fingerprints taken in connection with his arrest in 1985 and therefore did not constitute an intrusion upon his privacy (cf. No. 20542/92, Dec. 29.11.93, D.R. 75 pp. 231, 237-238). - EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81
LEANDER c. SUÈDE
- EKMR, 13.12.1982 - 9453/81
X. c. PORTUGAL
- LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, 04.01.1957 - A 14/56
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Im Fall Kinnunen/Finnland (EKMR, Entsch. v. 15.5.1996 - 24950/94) war sie der Auffassung, die nach der Verhaftung des Bf. gespeicherten Fingerabdrücke und Fotos hätten nicht in sein Privatleben eingegriffen, da sie keine subjektive, angreifbare Wertung enthielten.Im Fall Kinnunen/Finnland (EKMR, Entsch. v. 15.5.1996 - 24950/94) war sie der Auffassung, die nach der Verhaftung des Bf. gespeicherten Fingerabdrücke und Fotos hätten nicht in sein Privatleben eingegriffen, da sie keine subjektive, angreifbare Wertung enthielten.