Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56193) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HARJU v. FINLAND
Art. 8 MRK
Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95
ROTARU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
Third, the person affected must be able, if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 151., ECHR 2010-). - EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97
STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
In a sphere covered by written law, the "law" is the enactment in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 73957/01
VARGA c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
The applicant's right to respect for her home was thus violated by the fact that there was no prior judicial warrant and no possibility to obtain an effective judicial review a posteriori of either the decision to order the search or the manner in which it was conducted (see Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, § 73, 1 April 2008; and Isıldak v. Turkey, no. 12863/02, § 52, 30 September 2008).
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
Third, the person affected must be able, if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 151., ECHR 2010-). - EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 12863/02
ISILDAK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
The applicant's right to respect for her home was thus violated by the fact that there was no prior judicial warrant and no possibility to obtain an effective judicial review a posteriori of either the decision to order the search or the manner in which it was conducted (see Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, § 73, 1 April 2008; and Isıldak v. Turkey, no. 12863/02, § 52, 30 September 2008). - EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
Third, the person affected must be able, if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 151., ECHR 2010-). - EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
Turning to the present case, the Court reiterates that it has already found in the case of Sallinen and Others v. Finland (no. 50882/99, § 89, 27 September 2005) that there was no independent or judicial supervision of the issuance of the search warrant as the decision to authorise the order was taken by the police themselves (see also, mutatis mutandis, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 176-A; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 90, Series A no. 61; and Sorvisto v. Finland, cited above, § 117). - EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83
CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
In this respect, the Court notes that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited, it being in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply that law (see, inter alia, Chappell v. the United Kingdom, 30 March 1989, § 54, Series A no. 152-A). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
Turning to the present case, the Court reiterates that it has already found in the case of Sallinen and Others v. Finland (no. 50882/99, § 89, 27 September 2005) that there was no independent or judicial supervision of the issuance of the search warrant as the decision to authorise the order was taken by the police themselves (see also, mutatis mutandis, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 176-A; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 90, Series A no. 61; and Sorvisto v. Finland, cited above, § 117).
- EuGH, 18.06.2015 - C-583/13
Deutsche Bahn u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - …
Sie rügt weiter, das Gericht habe sich in Rn. 66 des angefochtenen Urteils rechtsfehlerhaft auf die Urteile Harju/Finnland (vom 15. Februar 2011, Nr. 56716/09,) und Heino/Finnland (vom 15. Februar 2011, Nr. 56720/09) des EGMR berufen, soweit es dort festgestellt habe, aus diesen Urteilen lasse sich der allgemeine Grundsatz ableiten, dass das Fehlen einer vorherigen richterlichen Genehmigung durch eine umfassende Kontrolle im Anschluss an die Nachprüfung kompensiert werden könne. - EuG, 06.09.2013 - T-289/11
Deutsche Bahn u.a. / Kommission - Wettbewerb - Verwaltungsverfahren - Beschluss, …
Der EGMR hat in seiner jüngeren Rechtsprechung (Urteile vom 15. Februar 2011, Harju/Finnland, Beschwerde Nr. 56716/09, Randnrn. 40 und 44, sowie Heino/Finnland, Beschwerde Nr. 56715/09, Randnrn. 40 und 44) unterstrichen, wie wichtig es ist, die Garantien umso gründlicher zu prüfen, wenn Nachprüfungen ohne vorherige richterliche Genehmigung stattfinden können. - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.06.2014 - Gutachten 2/13
Abschluss internationaler Übereinkünfte durch die Union - Beitritt der Union zur …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.04.2014 - C-37/13
Nexans und Nexans France / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Verordnung …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.02.2015 - C-583/13
Deutsche Bahn u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Art. 20 Abs. 4 und Art. 28 der …
16 - Urteil Harju/Finnland, Nr. 56716/09, ECHR 2011. - EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 32600/12
TRABAJO RUEDA c. ESPAGNE
Dans la présente affaire, il n'y avait aucun soupçon ni enquête préliminaire ou absence de poursuites pénales consécutives susceptibles de soulever des problèmes de nécessité ou d'arbitraire, ou en rapport avec une grande échelle de garanties procédurales (voir, par exemple, Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, 15 février 2011, ou Harju c. Finlande, no 56716/09, 15 février 2011). - EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 67120/09
NIEMINEN v. FINLAND
Even though there is an effective domestic remedy to complain about seizure, that remedy is not effective in respect of search (see for example Harju v. Finland, no. 56716/09, 15 February 2011).