Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLECHLO v. SLOVAKIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PLECHLO v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 7286/16

  POTOCZKÁ AND ADAMCO v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  Rn. 27 Further elements of statutory law and practice have been summarised in the Court's judgments in Potoczká and Adamčo v. Slovakia (no. 7286/16, §§ 33-41, 12 January 2023, with further references) and Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12 and 2 others, §§ 76, 82 and 83, 20 July 2021).

  Rn. 46 In particular, the Court notes that any opportunity for the applicant to challenge the warrant or any aspect of its implementation in the criminal proceedings against him would have concerned the protection of his right to a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, which is not at stake in this case, but would have had no direct connection with his rights protected independently under Article 8 of the Convention (see Potoczká and Adamčo v. Slovakia, no. 7286/16, § 61, 12 January 2023, with further references).

• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 58361/12

  X v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  Rn. 27 Further elements of statutory law and practice have been summarised in the Court's judgments in Potoczká and Adamčo v. Slovakia (no. 7286/16, §§ 33-41, 12 January 2023, with further references) and Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12 and 2 others, §§ 76, 82 and 83, 20 July 2021).

  Rn. 36 The Court notes that it examined essentially the same objection in Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12 and 2 others, §§ 114-20, 20 July 2021) and that it endorsed its findings from that case in Haščák (cited above, § 77-79).

• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  Y v. SLOVAKIA and 2 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  It was later included in the case file of a separate investigation that was opened in 2012 and looked into a wide range of matters involving the NPF in connection with material that had previously been posted on the Internet purporting to be the result of a secret-service operation publicly known by its codename "Gorilla" (see Haščák v. Slovakia, nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, §§ 14, 20 and 43, 23 June 2022) ("the Gorilla investigation").

  The Court considers that, on the facts, his complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see Haščák v. Slovakia, nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, §§ 66-67, 23 June 2022, with a further reference), the relevant part of which reads as follows:.

• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  Rn. 41 The Court reiterates that (i) telephone conversations are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" within the meaning of Article 8; (ii) their monitoring amounts to an interference with the exercise of the rights under Article 8; and (iii) such interference is justified by the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 8 only if it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see, among many other authorities, Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 78-79, 15 January 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Court cannot accept the standing of Mr J. Plechlo Jr. under Article 34 of the Convention to complain about an alleged violation of the applicant's rights after his death (see, for example, Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 41, 28 July 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.09.2026 - 6796/23

  TATIC v. SLOVAKIA and 5 other applications

  Rn. 47 In the present case, having regard to its the subject-matter and the material before it, the Court considers that Ms Hromčová can in principle claim a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings before the Court in the stead of the late Mr Tatič (see, for example, Plechlo v. Slovakia, no. 18593/19, § 28, 26 October 2023).
• EGMR, 03.04.2025 - 57748/21

  KULÁK v. SLOVAKIA

  Moreover, any opportunity for the applicant to challenge the warrant or any aspect of its implementation in the criminal proceedings against him would have concerned the protection of his right to a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, which is not at issue in the present case, but would have had no direct bearing on his rights protected independently under Article 8 of the Convention (see Plechlo v. Slovakia, no. 18593/19, § 46, 26 October 2023).
• EGMR, 01.04.2025 - 2799/16

  SHIPS WASTE OIL COLLECTOR B.V. ET AUTRES c. PAYS-BAS

  The remedy used by the applicant companies was therefore able to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference was not "in accordance with the law" or "necessary in a democratic society" (compare Capriotti v. Italy (dec.), no. 28819/12, §§ 56-57, 23 February 2016, and Gernelle and S.A. Société d'Exploitation de l'Hebdomadaire Le Point, cited above, §§ 44 and 51; contrast Zubkov and Others, cited above, §§ 88 and 95-98, with further references; Potoczká and Adamčo, cited above, § 61; and Plechlo v. Slovakia, no. 18593/19, § 46, 26 October 2023; see also, in the context of Article 13, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, and P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX).

• EGMR, 01.10.2026 - 7747/21

  BLAZOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  The warrants were made available to the Court (see paragraph 2 above; contrast Potoczká and Adamčo v. Slovakia, no. 7286/16, § 9, 12 January 2023, and Plechlo v. Slovakia, no. 18593/19, § 44, 26 October 2023) and it is clear that the persons who were subjected to the secret surveillance were the applicant's partner, his brother and their accomplice, but not the applicant.
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 22790/19

  DENYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  The Court also observes that, according to its settled case-law, an individual whose communications have been accidentally intercepted in the course of a surveillance operation targeting another person should have the possibility of vindicating his or her relevant Article 8 rights by resorting to an appropriate domestic remedy (see, in particular, Lambert v. France, 24 August 1998, §§ 34-41, Reports 1998-V; Roman Zakharov, cited above, § 295 in fine; and Plechlo v. Slovakia, no. 18593/19, §§ 47-51, 26 October 2023).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 49617/22

  KAVECANSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Moreover, any opportunity for the applicant to challenge the warrants or any aspect of their implementation in the criminal proceedings against him would have concerned the protection of his right to a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, which is not at issue in the present case, but would have had no direct bearing on his rights protected independently under Article 8 of the Convention (see Plechlo v. Slovakia, no. 18593/19, § 46, 26 October 2023).
• EGMR, 02.07.2024 - 26781/20

  PALMERI v. ITALY

  In similar cases, the Court observed that any opportunity for an applicant to challenge a search warrant or any aspect of its implementation in the criminal proceedings against him would have concerned the protection of his right to a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, but would have had no direct connection with his rights protected independently under Article 8 of the Convention (see Plechlo v. Slovakia, no. 18593/19, § 46, 26 October 2023, and Potoczká and Adamčo v. Slovakia, no. 7286/16, § 61, 12 January 2023).
• EGMR, 24.09.2024 - 13284/22

  HA? CÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application

  Rn. 9 More details are laid out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12 and 2 others, 20 July 2021), Haščák v. Slovakia (nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, 23 June 2022) and Plechlo v. Slovakia (no. 18593/19, 26 October 2023).