Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06, 27809/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,67801
EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06, 27809/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,67801)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.11.2009 - 16072/06, 27809/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,67801)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. November 2009 - 16072/06, 27809/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,67801)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,67801) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FRIEND AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 9, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 17, Art. 17+P1 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 14+9, Art. 14+1... 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Inadmissible (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    In asserting that the hunting bans in the United Kingdom constituted an interference with their private life, the applicants relied on the Court's observations in Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III that private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition and that the notion of personal autonomy was an important principle underlying the interpretation of Article 8. Private life was not limited to a reasonable expectation of privacy nor was it prevented from operating in a public context (Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 57, ECHR 2003-I).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 44647/98

    PECK c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    In asserting that the hunting bans in the United Kingdom constituted an interference with their private life, the applicants relied on the Court's observations in Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III that private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition and that the notion of personal autonomy was an important principle underlying the interpretation of Article 8. Private life was not limited to a reasonable expectation of privacy nor was it prevented from operating in a public context (Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 57, ECHR 2003-I).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

    DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    In recognition of that primary purpose, the Court has been led to observe that "the right to freedom of assembly is a fundamental right in a democratic society and like the right to freedom of expression, is one of the foundations of such a society" (Djavit An v. Turkey, no 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III) and accordingly, to regard those who organise demonstrations as "actors in the democratic process" (Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no.74552/01, § 38, ECHR 2006-....).
  • EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

    SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004-VIII, as authority for the proposition that there would be an interference through loss of livelihood as a result of the ban but, for Lord Bingham, this was a very extreme case which could be distinguished on its facts.
  • EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

    OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    In recognition of that primary purpose, the Court has been led to observe that "the right to freedom of assembly is a fundamental right in a democratic society and like the right to freedom of expression, is one of the foundations of such a society" (Djavit An v. Turkey, no 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III) and accordingly, to regard those who organise demonstrations as "actors in the democratic process" (Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no.74552/01, § 38, ECHR 2006-....).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 64209/01

    PEEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    However, in Peck and other cases where the Court has found an interference with the private life of an applicant whilst he or she was in a public space, it has always considered whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time (see, as a recent authority with further references, Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, §§ 37-39, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

    E.B. v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    This is no more so than for Article 8 where the Court has consistently held that the notion of private life is a broad concept (see, most recently, E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 43, ECHR 2008-..., and references therein).
  • EKMR, 03.10.1983 - 9278/81

    G. and E. v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    9278/81 and 9415/81, Commission decision of 3 October 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR) 35, p. 30. A person's profession or recreation might assume great importance in his life but that was quite different from the situation where an activity was so closely associated with the way of life of a particular group that it fell to be regarded as integral to the individual personality of every member of that group.
  • EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

    VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    In doing so, it relied on this Court's rulings in Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101 and the Commission's decision in Karni v. Sweden, no. 11540/85, 8 March 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 55, p. 157. However, for that livelihood and the other possessions of the petitioners, the Scottish Parliament had struck an appropriate balance: it had conducted extensive inquiries before legislating and had acted within the scope of its discretion in judging that foxhunting should be prohibited.
  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

    TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 16072/06
    In doing so, it relied on this Court's rulings in Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101 and the Commission's decision in Karni v. Sweden, no. 11540/85, 8 March 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 55, p. 157. However, for that livelihood and the other possessions of the petitioners, the Scottish Parliament had struck an appropriate balance: it had conducted extensive inquiries before legislating and had acted within the scope of its discretion in judging that foxhunting should be prohibited.
  • EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

    CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

    BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 9300/07

    Herrmann ./. Deutschland

    Chassagnou und andere./. Frankreich [GK], Nrn. 25088/94, 28331/95 und 28443/95, Rdnr. 113, CEDH 1999-III, und Friend und andere./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), Nrn. 16072/06 und 27809/08, Rdnrn. 43-44, 24. November 2009.
  • EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14

    EVERS v. GERMANY

    Die weite Fassung des Artikels 8 bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass er jegliche Handlung schützt, die eine Person mit anderen Menschen anstrebt, um solche Beziehungen einzugehen und zu entwickeln (Friend u.a../. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 16072/06 und 27809/08, Rdnr. 41, 24.
  • EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 49327/11

    Ohne Kleidung durch England: Nackt-Wanderer verliert

    They emphasised that Article 8 did not cover every opportunity to establish and develop relationships (citing Friend and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 16072/06, 24 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 16760/22

    EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Plus encore, dans l'affaire Friend et autres c. Royaume-Uni ((déc.), no 16072/06, § 50, 24 novembre 2009) qui concernait l'interdiction de la chasse à courre au renard, la Cour a considéré sous l'angle de l'article 11 de la Convention qu'une telle interdiction poursuivait le but légitime de protection de la morale, au sens qu'elle visait à éliminer la chasse et l'abattage d'animaux à des fins sportives d'une manière que le législateur avait jugée comme causant des souffrances et comme étant moralement et éthiquement répréhensible.
  • EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

    EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    16072/06 and 27809/08, § 50, 24 November 2009) and finds that this provision is applicable in the present case.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht