Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  B.R. v. GERMANY

  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 (2)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 26722/95

  The Commission finds that, in the circumstances of the present case and given the nature of the applicant's complaint, an appeal under S. 23 of the Introductory Act to the Courts Act as regards the execution of the search warrant was not an effective remedy which the applicant ought to have exhausted (cf. No. 13710/88, Dec. 5.4.90, unpublished).

  Referring to the Niemietz v. Germany judgment (Eur. Court HR, Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B), they concede that there has been an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8 para.

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 26722/95

  The exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2) are to be interpreted narrowly (cf. Eur. Court HR, Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, para. 42), and the need for them in a given case must be convincingly established (Eur. Court HR, Miailhe judgment, op. cit., p. 89, para. 36).

• 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).