Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASCÁK v. SLOVAKIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Y v. SLOVAKIA and 2 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BVerfG, 23.06.2015 - 1 BvL 13/11

  Ersatzbemessungsgrundlage im Grunderwerbsteuerrecht verfassungswidrig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  14/11/2022.
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that neither the impugned public statements nor any other circumstance indicated by the applicant has placed him in the position of a person who has been charged with a criminal offence in the Gorilla investigation (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51, with further references; and Casse v. Luxembourg, no. 40327/02, §§ 16 and 74, 27 April 2006).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  In so far as this part of the application has been substantiated, there is no indication that any of the impugned public comments exceeded the limits of a legitimate public debate by referring to the applicant in a way going beyond the limits of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (contrast Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 41, Series A no. 308, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94 and 96, 23 October 2008).

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  In so far as this part of the application has been substantiated, there is no indication that any of the impugned public comments exceeded the limits of a legitimate public debate by referring to the applicant in a way going beyond the limits of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (contrast Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 41, Series A no. 308, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94 and 96, 23 October 2008).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 19611/04

  SUBINSKI v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  In view of the nature of the matters that are the subject of the Gorilla investigation and their background, mere enquiries into them cannot be seen as involving charges against the applicant (contrast ? ubinski v. Slovenia, no. 19611/04, § 68, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 27.04.2006 - 40327/02

  CASSE c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that neither the impugned public statements nor any other circumstance indicated by the applicant has placed him in the position of a person who has been charged with a criminal offence in the Gorilla investigation (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51, with further references; and Casse v. Luxembourg, no. 40327/02, §§ 16 and 74, 27 April 2006).
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 58361/12

  X v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  The general context of the case, both at the national level and before the Court, is described in the Court's judgment in the case of Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12 and 2 others, 20 July 2021).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 47091/09

  PASTYRÍK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 58359/12

  Rather, the Court must confine itself to the circumstances of the case and take into account the nature and extent of the interference alleged by the applicant (see, for example, Pastyrík v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 47091/09, 31 May 2011).".

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 49617/22

  KAVECANSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court considers that, on the facts, the applicant's complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention only (see Haščák v. Slovakia, nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, §§ 66-67, 23 June 2022, with a further reference), the relevant parts of which read as follows:.

  Rn. 2 The judgment in paragraph 45 considers that, on the facts, the applicant's complaints fall to be examined only under Article 8 of the Convention (referring to Haščák v. Slovakia, nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, §§ 66-67, 23 June 2022, with a further reference).

• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  PLECHLO v. SLOVAKIA

  It was later included in the case file of a separate investigation that was opened in 2012 and looked into a wide range of matters involving the NPF in connection with material that had previously been posted on the Internet purporting to be the result of a secret-service operation publicly known by its codename "Gorilla" (see Haščák v. Slovakia, nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, §§ 14, 20 and 43, 23 June 2022) ("the Gorilla investigation").

  The Court considers that, on the facts, his complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see Haščák v. Slovakia, nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, §§ 66-67, 23 June 2022, with a further reference), the relevant part of which reads as follows:.

• EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 2507/19

  CONTRADA c. ITALIE

  À ce propos, la présente requête se distingue des affaires dans lesquelles les intéressés n'avaient pas été visés directement par la mesure mais avaient vu leurs conversations interceptées à la suite de la mise sur écoute de tiers (par exemple, Matheron c. France, no 57752/00, 29 mars 2005 ; Pruteanu c. Roumanie, no 30181/05, 3 février 2015 ; mutatis mutandis, Azer Ahmadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 3409/10, 22 juillet 2021 ; Haščák c. Slovaquie, nos 58359/12 et 2 autres, juin 2022).

• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 16974/14

  KACZMAREK v. POLAND

  The Warsaw District Court's decision, however, cannot be assessed since the reasoning was classified and has not been disclosed to the Court or to the applicant (compare Zoltán Varga, cited above, § 167, and Haščák v. Slovakia, no. 58359/12, § 96, 23 June 2022).
• EGMR, 24.09.2024 - 13284/22

  HA? CÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application

  Rn. 9 More details are laid out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12 and 2 others, 20 July 2021), Haščák v. Slovakia (nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, 23 June 2022) and Plechlo v. Slovakia (no. 18593/19, 26 October 2023).
• EGMR - 25592/16 (anhängig)

  X v. SLOVAKIA

  The first and second warrants are the subject matter of two other applications lodged by the applicant (nos. 58361/12 and 27176/16) as well as three applications lodged by the other person (nos. 58359/12, 27787/16 and 67667/16) pending before the Court.
• EGMR - 37955/21 (anhängig)

  ROMANO c. ITALIE

  Plus spécifiquement, les intéressées n'étant pas parties à la procédure pénale, disposaient-elles d'un recours leur permettant de contester de manière effective la légalité et la nécessité de la mesure prise à leur insu (Contrada c. Italie (no 4), no 2507/19, 23 mai 2024; voir également Pruteanu c. Roumanie, no 30181/05, 3 février 2015; Vasil Vasilev c. Bulgarie, no 7610/15, 16 novembre 2021; et Haščák c. Slovaquie, nos 58359/12 et 2 autres, 23 juin 2022) ?.