Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HALFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 10 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HALFORD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 13 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 10 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 02.03.1995 - 20605/92
• EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

  Thus, the domestic law must be sufficiently clear in its terms to give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in and conditions on which public authorities are empowered to resort to any such secret measures (see the above-mentioned Malone judgment, p. 32, para. 67; and, mutatis mutandis, the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 23, paras. 50-51).

  In my view, it cannot therefore be said that she did not have an "arguable" claim of a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) in respect of her home telephone (see, for example, the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 30, para. 79).

• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

  The Interception of Communications Act 1985 came into force on 10 April 1986 following the Court's judgment in Malone v. the United Kingdom (2 August 1984, Series A no. 82).

  1 (art. 8-1) (see the above-mentioned Klass and Others judgment, loc. cit.; the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 30, para. 64; the above-mentioned Huvig judgment, loc. cit.; and, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Niemietz judgment, pp. 33-35, paras. 29-33).

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

  1 (art. 8-1), since the Court in its case-law had adopted a broad construction of these expressions (see, for example, the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, para. 41; the Huvig v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 41, para. 8, and p. 52, para. 25; the Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; and the A. v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B).

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

  1 (art. 8-1), since the Court in its case-law had adopted a broad construction of these expressions (see, for example, the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, para. 41; the Huvig v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 41, para. 8, and p. 52, para. 25; the Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; and the A. v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

  1 (art. 8-1), since the Court in its case-law had adopted a broad construction of these expressions (see, for example, the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, para. 41; the Huvig v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 41, para. 8, and p. 52, para. 25; the Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; and the A. v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14838/89

  A. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

  1 (art. 8-1), since the Court in its case-law had adopted a broad construction of these expressions (see, for example, the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, para. 41; the Huvig v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 41, para. 8, and p. 52, para. 25; the Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; and the A. v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B).
• EKMR, 12.05.1988 - 12175/86

  P.H. and H.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.1997 - 20605/92

  Rn. 55 The Commission, applying its case-law, required the applicant to establish that there was a "reasonable likelihood" that calls made on her home telephone had been intercepted (see, for example, the report of the Commission on application no. 12175/86, Hewitt and Harman v. the United Kingdom, 9 May 1989, Decisions and Reports 67, pp. 98-99, paras. 29-32).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.05.2008 - C-73/07

  Satakunnan Markkinapörssi und Satamedia - Richtlinie 95/46 EG - Schutz …

  Siehe allgemeiner zur berechtigten Erwartung in Bezug auf die Datenverarbeitung auch EGMR, Urteile vom 25. Juni 1997, Halford (20605/92, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-III, § 45), vom 25. September 2001, P. G. und J. H. (44787/98, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2001-IX, § 57), und vom 3. April 2007, Copland (62617/00, noch nicht in der amtlichen Sammlung veröffentlicht, § 42).
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27057/06

  [ENG]

  The failure to make an award for non-pecuniary damage also contradicts numerous judgments of this Court in which surveillance activities taking place outside a clear and comprehensive legal framework led to a finding a violation of Article 8 and an award for non-pecuniary damage (see Vukota-Bojić v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, §§ 73-77, 105, ECHR 2016; Valentino Acatrinei v. Romania, no. 18540/04, §§ 61, 96, ECHR 2013; Copland v. the United Kingdom, no. 62617/00, §§ 45-49, 53-55, ECHR 2007; and Halford v. the United Kingdom, no. 20605/92, § 75, ECHR 1997).