Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAMOSIUS contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAMOSIUS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  Le mandat de perquisition a été accordé sur requête unilatérale en l'absence d'un avocat (contrairement à la procédure prévue par la loi de 1984 sur la police et les preuves en matière pénale), et le fait qu'un juge ait autorisé la perquisition n'était pas une garantie suffisante dans l'affaire Niemietz (Niemietz c. Allemagne, arrêt du 16 décembre 1992, série A no 251-B) ; et en tout état de cause, il était préoccupant que le juge, dans ce type d'affaire, ne fût pas suffisamment chevronné.
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  L'examen attentif d'un juge, même dans une procédure non contradictoire, est néanmoins une garantie importante contre tout abus (voir, par exemple, Funke c. France, arrêt du 25 février 1993, série A no 256-A, p. 25, § 57 ; voir aussi Chappell c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 30 mars 1989, série A no 152-A, p. 25, §§ 59-61, concernant l'octroi d'une ordonnance dite « Anton Piller'sur requête unilatérale).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  La Cour fait observer qu'il n'est pas contesté que la perquisition des bureaux du requérant a constitué une ingérence dans ses droits au regard de l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, en particulier, l'arrêt Niemietz précité, pp. 33-35, §§ 29-33, dans lequel la perquisition du bureau d'un avocat a été considérée comme une ingérence dans la vie privée et la correspondance, voire le « domicile ", ce terme ayant une connotation plus large que le mot « home'; et, plus récemment, Sociétés Colas Est et autres c. France, no 37971/97, §§ 40-42, CEDH 2002-III, dans lequel la Cour a jugé que les bureaux des sociétés requérantes qui avaient été perquisitionnés relevaient de la notion de « domicile ").
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  L'examen attentif d'un juge, même dans une procédure non contradictoire, est néanmoins une garantie importante contre tout abus (voir, par exemple, Funke c. France, arrêt du 25 février 1993, série A no 256-A, p. 25, § 57 ; voir aussi Chappell c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 30 mars 1989, série A no 152-A, p. 25, §§ 59-61, concernant l'octroi d'une ordonnance dite « Anton Piller'sur requête unilatérale).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  Selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, l'article 13 s'applique uniquement lorsqu'un individu a un « grief défendable'selon lequel il est victime d'une violation d'un droit au regard de la Convention (Boyle and Rice c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 27 avril 1988, série A no 131, § 52).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 74336/01

  Rechtswidrige Durchsuchung einer Anwaltskanzlei zur Erlangung elektronisch …

  Rn. 40 43. The Court reiterates that the search of a lawyer's office has been regarded as interfering with "private life" and "correspondence" and, potentially, home, in the wider sense implied by the French text which uses the term "domicile" (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-35, §§ 29-33, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finnland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005, which confirms that the search of a lawyer's business premises also interfered with his right to respect for his "home").
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including documents and electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-...).

  The Court accepts that the domestic judge, while examining the request, was satisfied that there was reasonable ground for suspecting that the commission of a fraud had occurred and that evidence might be found at the premises to be searched (see Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 30457/06

  Recht auf Achtung der Korrespondenz (Kommunikation) insbesondere bei …

  Elements taken into consideration are, in particular, whether the search was based on a warrant issued by a judge and based on reasonable suspicion; whether the scope of the warrant was reasonably limited; and - where the search of a lawyer's office was concerned - whether the search was carried out in the presence of an independent observer in order to ensure that materials subject to professional secrecy were not removed (see also Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 37, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, cited above, § 57).

• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04
  The Court notes that during the search there was no safeguard in place against interference with professional secrecy, such as, for example, a prohibition on removing documents covered by lawyer-client privilege or supervision of the search by an independent observer capable of identifying, independently of the investigation team, which documents were covered by legal professional privilege (see Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 89, 27 September 2005, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including, as in the present case, electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-35, §§ 29-33; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 69436/10

  BRITO FERRINHO BEXIGA VILLA-NOVA c. PORTUGAL

  À cet égard, elle renvoie à sa jurisprudence relative aux perquisitions dans les cabinets d'avocats (voir entre autres, mutatis mutandis, Niemietz, précité, § 37, Tamosius c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62002/00, CEDH 2002-VIII et Xavier da Silveira, précité, § 40).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 18700/09

  HAGENFELDT ADVOKATBYRA AB v. SWEDEN

  [97] While the granting of the Agency's application was obtained in an ex parte procedure, the Court considers that there may be good reason not to give forewarning of a proposed search; the scrutiny of the judge of the original application in the present case still provided an important safeguard against abuse (cf. Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 2204/11

  ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has examined a number of cases concerning searches of lawyers' offices under Article 8 of the Convention, finding that such searches amount to an interference with the lawyer's "private life", "home", and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-IV; and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 212, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 10.07.2025 - 2599/16

  KORNIYETS v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

  Rn. 69 While there are obvious valid reasons for excluding the person whose home is to be searched from participation when there is a prior application for a warrant for the search (see Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 29, 18 September 2014), there appears to be no justification why the same strict limitations should be applied in the course of a retrospective judicial review.
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 31175/14

  REZNIK v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 70 Lastly, in so far as the applicant's submissions on the deficiencies of the domestic law concerned a lack of any procedure for bringing his Article 8 arguments before a judge (including a right to be present or represented at the hearing of the application for the search warrant; a right of appeal against that warrant; and a right to raise a complaint about the actions of the law-enforcement officers in the course of the search operation itself) the Court reiterates, referring to its case-law, that the issuing of search warrants ex parte and the absence of a right to appeal against a warrant prior to its execution are not as such incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention (see, among others, Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII and Avanesyan, cited above, § 29).
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 12013/21

  Z.G. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 27153/07

  CACUCI ET S.C. VIRRA & CONT PAD S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 71362/01

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 41872/98
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 30958/13

  LEOTSAKOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 5678/06

  YUDITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 33066/04

  MANCEVSCHI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 7152/03

  KAPR c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 71064/12

  MOCULSKIS v. LATVIA