Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHRISTIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHRISTIE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  Following the decision of the Court in the Malone case (Eur. Court H.R., Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82), the Interception of Communications Act 1985 was enacted.

  In this context, it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49, and the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 32, para. 67).

  In addition, where the implementation of the law consists of secret measures, not open to scrutiny by the individuals concerned or by the public at large, the law itself, as opposed to the accompanying administrative practice, must indicate the scope of any discretion conferred on the competent authority with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see the above-mentioned Malone judgment, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, para. 68)." (Eur. Court H.R., Leander judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 23, para. 51).

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  In this context, it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49, and the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 32, para. 67).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  The Court has acknowledged the necessity for States to collect and store information on persons but has emphasised that it is however crucial, given the potential seriousness of resulting invasions of a person's private sphere, that there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse (Eur. Court H.R., Klass judgment of 6 September 1979, Series A no. 28, p. 23, para. 50).

 
• EKMR, 02.04.1993 - 18601/91

  ESBESTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  The Commission recalls that it has considered the compatibility with the requirements of foreseeability of the partial definition of "interests of national security" in the 1989 Act (see section 1(2) in Relevant Domestic Law and Practice) in two previous cases, Esbester v. the United Kingdom (No. 18601/91, Dec. 2.4.93 to be published in D.R.) and Hewitt and Harman v. the United Kingdom (No. 20317/92, Dec. 1.9.93 to be published in D.R.).
• EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20317/92

  HEWITT AND HARMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  The Commission recalls that it has considered the compatibility with the requirements of foreseeability of the partial definition of "interests of national security" in the 1989 Act (see section 1(2) in Relevant Domestic Law and Practice) in two previous cases, Esbester v. the United Kingdom (No. 18601/91, Dec. 2.4.93 to be published in D.R.) and Hewitt and Harman v. the United Kingdom (No. 20317/92, Dec. 1.9.93 to be published in D.R.).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  It only applies if the individual can be said to have an "arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  In addition, where the implementation of the law consists of secret measures, not open to scrutiny by the individuals concerned or by the public at large, the law itself, as opposed to the accompanying administrative practice, must indicate the scope of any discretion conferred on the competent authority with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see the above-mentioned Malone judgment, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, para. 68)." (Eur. Court H.R., Leander judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 23, para. 51).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  A law which conferred a discretion would not be inconsistent with this requirement provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise were indicated with sufficient clarity to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p.30, para. 61).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  It is compatible with the requirements of foreseeability that terms which are on their face general and unlimited are explained by administrative or executive statements and instructions, since it is the provision of sufficiently precise guidance to enable individuals to regulate their conduct, rather that the source of that guidance, which is of relevance (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Silver judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 33-34, paras. 88-89).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93

  This expression has been interpreted by the Court, firstly, as requiring that the interference must have some basis in domestic law and secondly, as referring to the quality of the law (see eg. Eur. Court H.R., Kruslin and Huvig judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, paras. 26-27, and no. 176-B, p. 52, paras. 54-55).

• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Il soutient que, en tout état de cause, les dispositions définissant les fonctions du Commissaire et de la Commission étaient suffisamment précises et accessibles et, s'appuyant sur les affaires Association pour l'intégration européenne et les droits de l'homme et Ekimzhiev c. Bulgarie (no 62540/00, arrêt du 28 juin 2007, §§ 77-94) et Christie c. Royaume-Uni (no 21482/93, décision de la Commission du 27 juin 1994), avance que l'on peut légitimement se fonder sur les garanties générales mises en place contre les abus dénoncés en l'espèce pour se prononcer sur la question du respect de la « prévisibilité " exigée par l'article 8 § 2. En outre, il affirme que la loi de 1985 érigeait en infraction les interceptions de communications non prévues par un mandat du ministre de l'Intérieur et que ses articles 2 et 3 § 2 précisaient très clairement que n'importe quelle communication à destination ou en provenance de l'étranger émise ou reçue par une personne se trouvant sur le territoire britannique pouvait en théorie faire l'objet d'une interception autorisée par un mandat à l'époque des faits.
• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 28576/95

  MATTHEWS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Commission recalls its findings in Christie v. United Kingdom (No. 21482/93, Dec. 27.6.94, D.R. 78-A p. 119) that insofar as any interception was carried out pursuant to a warrant issued in accordance with s. 2(2)(a) of the 1985 Act (that is in the interests of national security), the 1985 Act, if properly applied, provides a framework of safeguards against any arbitrary or unreasonable use of statutory powers in respect of an individual and satisfies the threshold requirements of Article 8 para.