Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOLLAND v. NORWAY

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  WOLLAND v. NORWAY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  Domestic law must further be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, and the person affected must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him or her (see, for example, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 228, ECHR 2015; and K.S. and M.S v. Germany, no. 33696/11, § 34, 6 October 2016).
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 33696/11

  Steuerhinterziehung: Steuer-CDs dürfen für Strafverfolgung genutzt werden

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  Domestic law must further be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, and the person affected must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him or her (see, for example, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 228, ECHR 2015; and K.S. and M.S v. Germany, no. 33696/11, § 34, 6 October 2016).
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 73607/13

  Staatsanwalt durfte Verteidigerkonto nicht filzen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  When considering the necessity of an interference, the Court must be satisfied that there were sufficient and adequate guarantees against arbitrariness, including the possibility of effective control of the measure at issue (see, for instance, Sommer v. Germany, no. 73607/13, § 56, 27 April 2017; and M.N. and Others v. San Marino, no. 28005/12, § 73, 7 July 2015).

• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  Moreover, the Court has previously acknowledged the importance of specific procedural guarantees when it comes to protecting the confidentiality of exchanges between lawyer and client and of legal professional privilege (see, inter alia, Sommer, cited above, § 56; and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 130, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  It does not compel States to allow individuals to challenge domestic laws before a national authority on the grounds of being contrary to the Convention, but seeks only to ensure that anyone who makes an arguable complaint of a violation of a Convention right will have an effective remedy in the domestic legal order (see, for example, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 180, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2156/10

  M v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  In the context of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has held that the fundamental rule of respect for lawyer-client confidentiality may only be derogated from in exceptional cases and on condition that adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse are in place (see, for instance, M v. the Netherlands, no. 2156/10, § 88, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  It had already (in Rt. 2008 page 158, where reference had been made to Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, 27 September 2005) been established that Article 8 applied to searches and seizures of a lawyer's materials.
• EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 43757/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  The Court has further elaborated that the Convention does not prevent domestic law allowing for searches of a lawyer's offices as long as proper safeguards are provided, for example the presence of a representative (or president) of a bar association (see, for example, Sommer, cited above, § 56; with references to André and Another v. France, no. 18603/03, 24 July 2008 (see, in particular, §§ 42-43); Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 69, ECHR 2003-IV; and Xavier Da Silveira v. France, no. 43757/05, §§ 37 and 43, 21 January 2010).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 46856/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  The expression "effective remedy" used in Article 13 cannot be interpreted as a remedy that is bound to succeed; it simply means an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for example, M.R.A. and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 46856/07, § 114, 12 January 2016).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 5232/24

  DACI v. ALBANIA

  Domestic law must further be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, and the person affected must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him or her (see, inter alia, in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, § 332, 25 May 2021; see also Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, § 62, 17 May 2018; and Särgava v. Estonia, no. 698/19, § 86, 16 November 2021).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 14704/12

  KIRDÖK AND HANBAYAT v. TURKEY

  En ce qui concernent les garanties spéciales de procédure devant être assorties à ces mesures de saisie chez un avocat, la Cour rappelle en premier lieu qu'elles doivent être encadrées par des règles prévisibles particulièrement claires et précises quant à leur adoption et leur mise en application (Petri Sallinen et autres, précité, § 90, et Wolland c. Norvège, no 39731/12, § 62, 17 mai 2018).
• EGMR, 03.04.2025 - 57748/21

  KULÁK v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court observes, in this regard, that, at the relevant time, domestic law did not provide for any procedure to ensure that material unrelated to ongoing criminal proceedings and subject to legal professional privilege be preserved (compare and contrast Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, cited above, §§ 62-63, as regards safeguards laid down by law, and Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, §§ 38 and 63, 17 May 2018).

• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  SACHARUK v. LITHUANIA

  Domestic law must further be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, and the person affected must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him or her (see, inter alia, Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, § 332, 25 May 2021; see also Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, § 62, 17 May 2018; and Särgava v. Estonia, no. 698/19, § 86, 16 November 2021).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 698/19

  SÄRGAVA v. ESTONIA

  Domestic law must further be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, and the person affected must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him or her (see Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, § 332, 25 May 2021; Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, § 62, 17 May 2018; see also Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 56, 5 July 2012).
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 31175/14

  REZNIK v. UKRAINE

  That is, it must provide specific procedural safeguards for adequate protection of the individual from arbitrary interference by State authorities (see, among others, Robathin v. Austria, no. 30457/06, § 40, 3 July 2012; Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, § 62, 17 May 2018; and Särgava v. Estonia, no. 698/19, § 86, 16 November 2021).
• EGMR, 19.05.2026 - 57872/19

  TRIFONOV c. BULGARIE

  La jurisprudence pertinente de la Cour accorde une protection particulière aux locaux professionnels des avocats afin de préserver le secret professionnel et les intérêts des clients, et elle exige la mise en place de garanties spécifiques contre l'arbitraire pour encadrer les perquisitions de ces locaux (André et autre c. France, no 18603/03, §§ 41 et 42, 24 juillet 2008, et Wolland c. Norvège, no 39731/12, § 75, 17 mai 2018).
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 71064/12

  MOCULSKIS v. LATVIA

  Taking into account the fact that the applicant's tablet computer contained confidential material about his clients and ongoing proceedings, and that the police had access to the Internet browser's history log, the Court considers that the seizure of the applicant's tablet computer amounted to an interference with the right to respect for his "private life" and his "correspondence" (see Kopp, cited above, §§ 51-53, in relation to the interception of telephone calls; Robathin v. Austria, no. 30457/06, § 39, 3 July 2012, in relation to the search and seizure of electronic data; and Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, § 52, 17 May 2018, in relation to the search and seizure of a large number of documents, including mirror copies of the applicant's computer and hard disk).
• EGMR, 24.09.2024 - 40969/21

  SCHOUTEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Finally, the seizure of the telephone did not take place in the applicant's home, business premises or means of transportation (compare and contrast Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 27-33, Series A no. 251-B; Särgava, cited above, § 85; and Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, §§ 7-8 and 52, 17 May 2018).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30149/19

  MIRMOTAHARI v. NORWAY

  Proceeding to the law at issue in the instant case, the Court recalls that it has recently examined the relevant domestic legal provisions and case-law on search and seizure-procedures relating to lawyer's premises in the respondent State, and their compatibility with the rule of law, in the case of Wolland v. Norway (no. 39731/12, 17 May 2018).