Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERTINAS AND MERTINIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 43579/09

  40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012), the Supreme Court held that there had been a breach of R.C.'s right to privacy.

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012, with further references).

• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 43579/09

  Furthermore, in striking this balance, the aims mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 8 may be of a certain relevance (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 37, Series A no. 106).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 43579/09

  Accordingly, this is an area in which the Contracting Parties enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention, account being taken of the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 55, Series A no. 112).

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 16313/10

  Veröffentlichung mehrerer Fotos der Kinder von Oliver Kahn

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 43579/09

  That notwithstanding, the Court has also held very recently that States have a margin of appreciation in deciding how to effectively protect the right to privacy, and that a victim of a violation may not expect that a breach of Article 8 follows unless he or she receives a certain amount of pecuniary compensation (see, mutatis mutandis, Kahn v. Germany, no. 16313/10, § 75, 17 March 2016).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 36919/02

  ARMONIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 43579/09

  The Court had already acknowledged that, in cases of outrageous abuse of press freedom, severe legislative limitations on judicial discretion with regard to compensation for non-pecuniary damage had failed to provide victims with sufficient protection (the applicants relied on the Court's judgments in Biriuk v. Lithuania (no. 23373/03, 25 November 2008) and Armonienė v. Lithuania (no. 36919/02, 25 November 2008)).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  BIRIUK v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 43579/09

  The Court had already acknowledged that, in cases of outrageous abuse of press freedom, severe legislative limitations on judicial discretion with regard to compensation for non-pecuniary damage had failed to provide victims with sufficient protection (the applicants relied on the Court's judgments in Biriuk v. Lithuania (no. 23373/03, 25 November 2008) and Armonienė v. Lithuania (no. 36919/02, 25 November 2008)).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 4782/18

  Österreich verurteilt: Vorwürfe eines KZ-Überlebenden nicht geprüft

  When it comes to compensation for non-pecuniary damage in privacy cases, the Court has held that a victim of a violation cannot expect that a breach of Article 8 of the Convention will automatically follow if he or she does not receive a certain amount of pecuniary compensation (see Mertinas and Mertinienė v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 43579/09, § 51, 8 November 2016, and, mutatis mutandis, Kahn v. Germany, no. 16313/10, § 75, 17 March 2016).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 31221/15

  EINARSSON v. ICELAND

  As to non-pecuniary damages in breach of privacy cases, the Court has held that a victim of a violation may not expect that a breach of Article 8 of the Convention follows unless he or she receives a certain amount of pecuniary compensation (see Mertinas and Mertiniené v Lithuania (dec.), no. 43579/09, § 51, 8 November 2016 and, mutatis mutandis, Kahn v. Germany, cited above, § 75).
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 17157/16

  STOYANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Elle en conclut que l'État défendeur a manqué à ses obligations positives au titre de l'article 8 de la Convention (comparer avec Biriuk, précité, §§ 45-46, Mertinas et Mertinienė c. Lituanie (déc.), no 43579/09, §§ 51-53, 8 novembre 2016, et Žvagulis c. Lituanie (déc.), no 8619/09, §§ 64-68, 13 décembre 2016).