Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RINGLER v. AUSTRIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RINGLER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, and Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI), the Constitutional Court observed that section 53(3a) and (3b) of the SPA did not regulate secret surveillance of communications but merely empowered the police authorities to obtain specific information about telephone or internet users from providers of telecommunications services.

  As to the applicant´s victim status, the Court has constantly held that its task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, inter alia, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28, and more recently Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, § 32, 12 January 2016, Kosaité-Cypiené and Others v. Lithuania, no. 69489/12, § 67, 4 June 2019).

• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  In such cases, the individual may claim to be a victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting secret measures only if he is able to show that, due to his personal situation, he is potentially at risk of being subjected to such measures (Roman Zakharov v. Russia ([GC], no. 47143/06, § 171, ECHR 2015 which concerned covert interception of mobile telephone communications).
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, and Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI), the Constitutional Court observed that section 53(3a) and (3b) of the SPA did not regulate secret surveillance of communications but merely empowered the police authorities to obtain specific information about telephone or internet users from providers of telecommunications services.

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37138/14

  Ungarns Anti-Terror-Gesetz ist menschenrechtswidrig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  As to the applicant´s victim status, the Court has constantly held that its task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, inter alia, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28, and more recently Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, § 32, 12 January 2016, Kosaité-Cypiené and Others v. Lithuania, no. 69489/12, § 67, 4 June 2019).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  Such a complaint did thus not require a description of the facts, which could only be given after an applicant had concrete information about any measures (see, mutatis mutandis, Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 167, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 62357/14

  BENEDIK v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  In the context of personal data, the Court has found that the term 'private life' must not be interpreted restrictively (Benedik v. Slovenia, no. 62357/14, §§ 102-104, 24 April 2018 with further references, and Ben Faiza v. France, no. 31446/12, § 66, 8 February 2018 concerning, inter alia, the numbers dialled, the date and duration of telephone calls).
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 31446/12

  BEN FAIZA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  In the context of personal data, the Court has found that the term 'private life' must not be interpreted restrictively (Benedik v. Slovenia, no. 62357/14, §§ 102-104, 24 April 2018 with further references, and Ben Faiza v. France, no. 31446/12, § 66, 8 February 2018 concerning, inter alia, the numbers dialled, the date and duration of telephone calls).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  VALERIY FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  Having declared the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, the Court concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, for the same approach, Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 98, 16 January 2014, and Lolova and Popova (dec.), no. 68053/10, § 52, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 68053/10

  LOLOVA AND POPOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  Having declared the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, the Court concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, for the same approach, Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 98, 16 January 2014, and Lolova and Popova (dec.), no. 68053/10, § 52, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 69489/12

  KOSAITÄ- - CYPIENÄ- AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  As to the applicant´s victim status, the Court has constantly held that its task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, inter alia, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28, and more recently Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, § 32, 12 January 2016, Kosaité-Cypiené and Others v. Lithuania, no. 69489/12, § 67, 4 June 2019).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Government were, however, vague on the point, contenting themselves to say that the 2019 amendment had introduced provisions governing the liability of communications service providers and the relevant authorities in respect of retained and accessed communications data (see paragraphs 363 and 388 above, and contrast the circumstances in Ringler v. Austria (dec.) [Committee], no. 2309/10, §§ 12-13 and 51-54, 15 May 2020).
• EGMR, 28.04.2026 - 45864/22

  KANEV AND BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE v. BULGARIA

  Supervisory bodies of that sort can furnish an effective safeguard with respect to data processing by the authorities for law-enforcement and intelligence purposes (see Breyer v. Germany, no. 50001/12, §§ 105 and 107, 30 January 2020, and Ringler v. Austria (dec.) [Committee], no. 2309/10, §§ 72-79, 15 May 2020).
• EGMR, 17.02.2026 - 6580/22

  GREEN ALLIANCE v. BULGARIA

  The possibility of complaining to that Commission cannot therefore be seen as an effective remedy with respect to the use of "agents on cover" (compare, mutatis mutandis, Ekimdzhiev and Others, cited above, § 346, and Hüttl v. Hungary [Committee], no. 58032/16, §§ 15-18, 29 September 2022; also contrast Breyer v. Germany, no. 50001/12, §§ 105 and 107, 30 January 2020, and Ringler v. Austria (dec.) [Committee], no. 2309/10, §§ 72-79, 15 May 2020).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 3599/10

  TRETTER AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  A comprehensive summary of the general tasks and the structure of the police authorities under the SPA is contained in the Court's decision in the case of Ringler v. Austria (dec.) [Committee], no. 2309/10, §§ 14-17, 12 May 2020.