Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 in respect of use of listening device at flat No violation of Art. 8 in respect of obtaining information about use of phone Violation of Art. 8 in respect of use of listening device at police station No violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.G. ET J.H. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 quant à l'utilisation d'un dispositif d'écoute dans un appartement Non-violation de l'art. 8 quant à l'obtention d'informations sur l'utilisation d'un téléphone Violation de l'art. 8 quant à l'utilisation d'un dispositif d'écoute ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.10.2000 - 44787/98
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

Wird zitiert von ... (96)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and, for a more recent example in a different context, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1462, § 34).

  The majority refer in their reasoning to Schenk v. Switzerland, (judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140), and consider that Khan (cited above) applied those principles, from which they deduce that, owing to similarities between the facts of that judgment and those of the present case, they have an obligation to follow precedent (see paragraphs 77 and 78 of the judgment).

• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  They recalled, however, that in Khan v. the United Kingdom (no. 35394/97, §§ 26-28, ECHR 2000-V), the Court found that the Home Office Guidelines governing such devices did not satisfy the requirement of "in accordance with the law" and recognised that the Court was liable to reach the same conclusion in the present case.

  In that respect I share the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Loucaides annexed to Khan v. the United Kingdom (no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V): "It is my opinion that the term 'fairness', when examined in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, implies observance of the rule of law and for that matter it presupposes respect of the human rights set out in the Convention.

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  As the Court has already had occasion to stress, the Convention must be interpreted as a coherent whole (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, pp. 30-31, §§ 68-69).

• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  The fairness referred to in Article 6 of the Convention also includes a requirement of lawfulness (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  The rights enshrined in the Convention cannot remain purely theoretical or virtual because "the Convention must be interpreted and applied in such a way as to guarantee rights that are practical and effective" (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV; Beer and Regan v. Germany [GC], no. 28934/95, § 57, 18 February 1999, unreported; and García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 43, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 28934/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  The rights enshrined in the Convention cannot remain purely theoretical or virtual because "the Convention must be interpreted and applied in such a way as to guarantee rights that are practical and effective" (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV; Beer and Regan v. Germany [GC], no. 28934/95, § 57, 18 February 1999, unreported; and García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 43, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 38695/97

  GARCÍA MANIBARDO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  The rights enshrined in the Convention cannot remain purely theoretical or virtual because "the Convention must be interpreted and applied in such a way as to guarantee rights that are practical and effective" (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV; Beer and Regan v. Germany [GC], no. 28934/95, § 57, 18 February 1999, unreported; and García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 43, ECHR 2000-II).
• EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 27237/95

  GOVELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  They noted that an award of 1, 000 pounds sterling (GBP) had been made in the similar case of Govell v. the United Kingdom (no. 27237/95, Commission's report of 14 January 1998, unreported).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  It may include activities of a professional or business nature (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, § 29, and Halford, cited above, p. 1016, § 44).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  The Court has referred in this context to the Council of Europe's Convention of 28 January 1981 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data, which came into force on 1 October 1985 and whose purpose is "to secure in the territory of each Party for every individual... respect for his rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular his right to privacy, with regard to automatic processing of personal data relating to him" (Article 1), such data being defined as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual" (Article 2) (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 2000-II, where the storing of information about the applicant on a card in a file was found to be an interference with private life, even though it contained no sensitive information and had probably never been consulted).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

  B. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• KAG Mainz, 18.07.2012 - M 25/12
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 29777/96

  FITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 59320/00

  Verletzung von Art. 8 EMRK durch Veröffentlichung von Fotos und Artikel aus der …

  Demnach gibt es zwischen dem Einzelnen und Dritten eine interaktive Zone, die auch in einem öffentlichen Zusammenhang dem "Privatleben" zugerechnet werden kann (siehe sinngemäß die Rechtssachen P.G. und J.H. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Nr. 44787/98, Rdnr. 56, EuGHMR 2000-IX, und Peck ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Nr. 4464/98, Rdnr. 57, EuGHMR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Since there are occasions when people knowingly or intentionally involve themselves in activities which are or may be recorded or reported in a public manner, a person's reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, although not necessarily conclusive, factor in this assessment (see P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 57, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 35623/05

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens (Datenschutz; GPS-Überwachung; Observation; …

  Daher gibt es auch in einem öffentlichen Kontext einen Bereich, in dem eine Person mit anderen interagiert, der unter den Begriff des "Privatlebens" fallen kann (siehe Rechtssachen P.G. und J .H. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44787/98, Randnr. 56 EGMR 2001-IX; Peck ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44647/98, Randnr. 57, EGMR 2003-I; und Perry ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 63737/00, Randnr. 36, EGMR 2003-IX (auszugsweise)).

• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 1874/13

  LÓPEZ RIBALDA v. SPAIN and 1 other application

  In the context of the monitoring of the actions of an individual by the use of photographic equipment, the Court has found that private-life considerations may arise concerning the recording of the data and the systematic or permanent nature of the recording (compare P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 57, ECHR 2001-IX; Peck, cited above, §§ 58-59; and Perry, cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 43868/18

  WA BAILE c. SUISSE

  Il existe ainsi une zone d'interaction entre l'individu et autrui qui, même dans un contexte public, peut relever de la « vie privée'(P.G. et J.H. c. Royaume-Uni, no 44787/98, § 56, CEDH 2001-IX, avec les références citées).
• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine

  Les garanties requises dépendent, au moins dans une certaine mesure, de la nature et de la portée de l'ingérence en question (P.G. et J.H. c. Royaume-Uni, no 44787/98, § 46, CEDH 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 11519/20

  GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA

  It has also found that the following instances of collection of data in a public place constituted an interference with the persons' private lives: the recording of a questioning in a public area of a police station (see P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 56-60, ECHR 2001-IX); recording by CCTV cameras in a public place and the subsequent disclosure of the videofootage to the media (see Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 57-63, ECHR 2003-I); recording of videofootage at a police station and its subsequent use in criminal proceedings (see Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, §§ 36-43, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); the collection, through a GPS device attached to a person's car, and storage of data concerning that person's whereabouts and movements in the public sphere (see Uzun.
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has already held that although the courts could, in the criminal proceedings, consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan, cited above, § 44; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; and Goranova-Karaeneva, cited above, § 59).

  Nonetheless, the admission in evidence of information obtained thereby did not in the circumstances of a particular case conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Khan, cited above, §§ 25-28; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2001-IX; and Bykov, cited above, §§ 94-105).

• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 10764/09

  Keine Bedenken gegen Dashcam-Videos vor Gericht?

  En ce qui concerne plus particulièrement la non-restitution des cassettes, la Cour constate que, comme le relève le Gouvernement, celles-ci ont été incorporées au dossier judiciaire comme éléments de preuve au procès civil (paragraphe 6 ci-dessus) et rappelle que l'utilisation de ces éléments, dont faisaient partie les enregistrements, resta limitée aux fins du procès et ne donna nullement lieu à leur diffusion publique (voir a contrario, P.G. et J.H. c. Royaume-Uni, no 44787/98, § 57, CEDH 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 21200/05

  [ENG]

  Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and İrfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Šantare and Labazņikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).

  The Court has already found in several cases where the use of covert listening devices was not "in accordance with the law" and therefore in breach of Article 8 that the admission in evidence of information obtained thereby did not, in the circumstances of the cases, conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-49, Series A no. 140; Khan, cited above, §§ 34-40; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 76-81, ECHR 2001-IX; and Bykov, cited above, §§ 94-98).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 64209/01

  PEEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 57292/16

  HURBAIN c. BELGIQUE
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.05.2008 - C-73/07

  Satakunnan Markkinapörssi und Satamedia - Richtlinie 95/46 EG - Schutz …
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 63737/00

  PERRY c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.10.2026 - 25406/22

  CENGIZ v. TÜRKIYE and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

  KOTIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 38059/13

  SVETINA v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 40233/07

  KALNENIENE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 6091/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 75109/01

  VIOREL BURZO c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 31446/12

  BEN FAIZA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 36345/16

  BUDAI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17

  SOLSKA v. POLAND and 1 other application
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 4268/04

  PANOVITS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 71525/01

  DUMITRU POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 2800/16

  JANSSEN DE JONG GROEP B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 1234/05

  REKLOS ET DAVOURLIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02

  CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 43478/11

  HAMBARDZUMYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 5935/02

  HEGLAS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 2799/16

  SHIPS WASTE OIL COLLECTOR B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 35285/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 71611/01

  WISSE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 62617/00

  COPLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 51409/19

  MACHARIK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 66167/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 29864/03

  MULOSMANI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 5612/08

  ALONY KATE c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 3124/16

  BURANDO HOLDING B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36020/06

  COSCODAR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 70489/17

  BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  BASIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 19267/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 43571/12

  BERLIZEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  ZOSYMOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 22568/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 17331/11

  MEHMEDOVIC c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  NEDILENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 6250/10

  PAKSÜT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 12739/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 32792/05

  PAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

  CHALKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 42065/06

  KIBERMANIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 44280/07

  PANAIT c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 1234/05

  REKLOS ET DAVOURLIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 65849/01

  GÜZEL contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR - 77427/14 (anhängig)

  MIKHAYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2025 - 35844/17

  SEYDI ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 34467/15

  SÂRBU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 45501/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 25403/07

  VARLAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 11590/08

  MEIER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 11.10.2012 - 43353/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 71225/01

  K. c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 50015/99

  HEWITSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.01.2026 - 55672/22

  ÇELA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 73357/14

  FALZARANO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27773/09

  NIEMCZYK c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 58112/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 27656/07

  ARAPI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 40030/08

  COZMA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 50015/99

  HEWITSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00

  CHALKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 56725/00

  CARROZZO contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2002 - 43467/98

  TURQUIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 840/21

  FUSTER-FABRA TORRELLAS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 23414/02

  WOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 63608/00

  MARTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63737/00

  PERRY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 35015/20

  FERENC v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09

  BOYCE v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 1303/02

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM