Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.T. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  Britische DNA-Datenbanken verstoßen gegen die Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  The Court also reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government pleading non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, in particular, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  However, it considers that the interference in the present case raises such a serious issue of proportionality to any possible legitimate aim that it will also examine this aspect (see, for instance, Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 157, 23 June 2016, and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 194-196, 23 February 2016).

• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  The Court also reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government pleading non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, in particular, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  This is all the more true when the processing affects highly intimate and sensitive categories of information, notably the information relating to physical or mental health of an identifiable individual (see, in particular, Z. v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016 and Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 70, 26 January 2017).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06

  Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  This is all the more true when the processing affects highly intimate and sensitive categories of information, notably the information relating to physical or mental health of an identifiable individual (see, in particular, Z. v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016 and Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 70, 26 January 2017).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 32816/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the remedy referred to by the Government was not effective in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Ciubuc and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 32816/07, § 26, 10 January 2012, and Nikolyan v. Armenia, no. 74438/14, § 126, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 74438/14

  NIKOLYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the remedy referred to by the Government was not effective in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Ciubuc and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 32816/07, § 26, 10 January 2012, and Nikolyan v. Armenia, no. 74438/14, § 126, 3 October 2019).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

  Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

  Dans d'autres affaires, la Cour s'appuie sur les observations des parties uniquement et, ce faisant, laisse entendre qu'elle s'abstient d'agir d'office (voir, par exemple, Turek c. Slovaquie, no 57986/00, § 99, CEDH 2006-II (extraits), Peev c. Bulgarie, no 64209/01, § 62, 26 juillet 2007, Starokadomski c. Russie, no 42239/02, § 83, 31 juillet 2008, Goubkine c. Russie, no 36941/02, § 155, 23 avril 2009, Oliari et autres c. Italie, nos 18766/11 et 36030/11, § 185, 21 juillet 2015, Ibrahimov et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 69234/11 et 2 autres, § 80, 11 février 2016, Mozer c. République de Moldova et Russie [GC], no 11138/10, §§ 193-199, 23 février 2016, Biržietis c. Lituanie, no 49304/09, § 58, 14 juin 2016, Kryževičius c. Lituanie, no 67816/14, §§ 67-70, 11 décembre 2018, P.T. c. République de Moldova, no 1122/12, §§ 29-33, 26 mai 2020, et Yunusova et Yunusov c. Azerbaïdjan (no 2), no 68817/14, §§ 152-159, 16 juillet 2020).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 41542/13

  BODRUG v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  This is all the more true when the processing affects highly intimate and sensitive categories of information, notably information relating to the physical or mental health of an identifiable individual (see, in particular, Z. v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016, Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 70, 26 January 2017 and P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 26, 26 May 2020).

  While the conclusion in the preceding paragraph is sufficient for the Court to find a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, it cannot but mention that the Government did not make any submissions as to which "legitimate aim" could have been pursued by disclosing the applicant's medical information to the public (see P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 29, 26 May 2020), nor as to why such a disclosure was "necessary in a democratic society".

• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  Under the Court's case law, if the authorities do not justify an interference with a Convention right, the Court may find this interference disproportionate (see, for instance, Association Rhino and Others v. Switzerland, no. 48848/07, § 65, 11 October 2011; Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, no. 33203/08, § 58, 12 June 2014; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 193-199, 23 February 2016; Biržietis v. Lithuania, no. 49304/09, § 58, 14 June 2016; Antonov and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 315/10 1153/10 1158/10, § 90 2 July 2019; and P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 29-33, 26 May 2020).

• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 31612/09

  PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It would not be surprising were the Court to find in similar future cases that the applicants were not required to attempt national remedies at all, these having already proved ineffective (compare, albeit in a different context, P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  It is with reference to the Government's submissions and, foremost, on account of the related domestic findings on the necessity of the "interference" in pursuance of a legitimate aim or, at least, of the rationale for the underlying legislative framework that the Court would take a stance on the relevant legitimate aim(s) (see P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 29, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13

  MARCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  [4] Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997, § 96; Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011, § 64; Armonienė v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, 25 November 2008, § 40; Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, 25 November 2008, § 39; I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, 17 July 2008, § 38; C.C. v. Spain, no. 1425/06, 6 October 2009, § 33; P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, 26 May 2020, §§ 5-6, 26.
• EGMR, 21.05.2026 - 63750/17

  V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 23 The general principles concerning protection from disclosure of personal data have recently been summarised in P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 1122/12, §§ 27-28, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 12.09.2024 - 40106/15

  MARTYNYAK v. UKRAINE

  Regard being had to the principles developed in the relevant case-law, the Court finds that disclosure of the applicant's past conviction in an extract from the police register amounted to the processing of sensitive personal data concerning him and constituted an interference with his right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see M.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24029/07, §§ 187-90 and 195, 13 November 2012, and compare P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 28, 26 May 2020).