Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.E. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  R.E. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 62498/11

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2016, 2013

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  In dismissing the claim, the court relied on Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010, which found that the regime under Part I of RIPA was compatible with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

  The provisions of domestic law which govern the interception, acquisition and disclosure of communication data (including Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ("RIPA") together with the relevant sections of the Code) are set out in Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, §§ 25 - 61, 18 May 2010.

  The applicant submitted that the combined effect of Part II of RIPA, the Revised Code and the PSNI Service Procedure did not provide, in relation to covert surveillance of lawyer/client consultations, the "adequate and effective guarantees against abuse" required by Article 8 of the Convention, especially when compared with the clear and precise statutory guidelines outlined in Part I of RIPA in respect of the interception of communications (see Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010).

  In respect of Part I of RIPA the Court considered that the interception regime pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of national security and the prevention of disorder and crime (Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 155, 18 May 2010).

• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 35623/05

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  In Uzun v. Germany, no. 35623/05, § 66, ECHR 2010 (extracts) the Court accepted that the monitoring of a car's movements by GPS interfered with the applicant's Article 8 rights.
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  The Court has recognised that, while Article 8 protects the confidentiality of all correspondence between individuals, it will afford "strengthened protection" to exchanges between lawyers and their clients, as lawyers would be unable to defend their clients if they were unable to guarantee that their exchanges would remain confidential (Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 118, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  In Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 78, 10 March 2009, a case which concerned the recording of a private conversation by way of a radio transmitting device, the Court made it clear that the degree of precision required of the law would depend upon the particular subject-matter of the case.
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  In this regard, it is now well-established that an individual may under certain conditions claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of legislation permitting secret measures without having to demonstrate that such measures were in fact applied to him (Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 34, Series A no. 28).
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  In the special context of secret surveillance measures, the Court has found that "foreseeability" requires that domestic law be sufficiently clear to give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which public authorities are empowered to resort to any such measures (see, for example, the admissibility decision in Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XI).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  The requirement that any interference must be "in accordance with the law" under Article 8 § 2 will only be met when three conditions are satisfied: the impugned measure must have some basis in domestic law; the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned; and the person concerned must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him (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 Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 37, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

  ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  The Government referred to Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 92 - 92, 28 June 2007, which indicated that the Court should consider evidence of the actual operation of the system of surveillance, in particular whether it was working properly or whether it was subject to abuse.
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 62498/11

  The requirement that any interference must be "in accordance with the law" under Article 8 § 2 will only be met when three conditions are satisfied: the impugned measure must have some basis in domestic law; the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned; and the person concerned must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him (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 Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 37, 10 February 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.06.2016 - 49176/11

  VERSINI-CAMPINCHI ET CRASNIANSKI c. FRANCE

  Lorsqu'il s'agit de l'interception d'une communication, la condition de prévisibilité exige que le droit interne précise notamment la définition des catégories de personnes susceptibles d'être mises sur écoute judiciaire, la nature des infractions pouvant y donner lieu, la fixation d'une limite à la durée de l'exécution de la mesure, les conditions d'établissement des procès-verbaux de synthèse consignant les conversations interceptées, et l'utilisation et l'effacement des enregistrements réalisés (Valenzuela Contreras c. Espagne, 30 juillet 1998, § 59, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-V ; voir aussi R.E. c. Royaume-Uni, no 62498/11, § 123, 27 octobre 2015, ainsi que Roman Zakharov, précité, § 231).