Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHALKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 63831/00
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

  Such an award should be higher in his case than the GBP 1, 000 awarded in P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom (no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX) due to the element of contrivance involved.
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

  The Government accepted, following the judgment in Khan v. the United Kingdom (no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V, §§ 26-28), that the use of the recording device amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to private life under Article 8 § 1 and that the measures were not used "in accordance with law" within the meaning of Article 8 § 2.
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 47114/99

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der vertraulichen Korrespondenz …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

  As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes that in cases involving a similar breach based on the lack of legal basis for surveillance measures that finding of a violation provided sufficient just satisfaction (for example, Khan, cited above, 49, Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom, no. 47114/99, judgment of 22 October 2002, § 28).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 62617/00

  Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte schützt private Nutzung des Internets

  ... 54. The Government submitted that ..., as the Court had held in a number of cases relating to complaints involving the interception of the communications of suspected criminals by the police, in their view, a finding of a violation should in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction (see Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom, no. 47114/99, § 28, 22 October 2002, Hewitson v. the United Kingdom, no. 50015/99, § 25, 27 May 2003 and Chalkley v. the United Kingdom, no. 63831/00, § 32, 12 June 2003).
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 12739/05

  [FRE]

  It is of the view that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any damage which the applicant may have suffered as a result of the breach of Article 13 (see Kruslin, § 39, and Khan, § 49, both cited above, as well as Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom, no. 47114/99, § 28, 22 October 2002; Chalkley v. the United Kingdom, no. 63831/00, § 32, 12 June 2003; and Wood v. the United Kingdom, no. 23414/02, § 37, 16 November 2004).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  [ENG]

  This date is accordingly to be considered as the date of introduction of the application (see Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec), no. 63831/00, 26 September 2002).

• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA

  However, where a substantial interval followed before an applicant submitted further information about his proposed application or before he returned the application form, the Court would examine the particular circumstances of the case to determine what should be regarded as the relevant date with a view to calculating the running of the six-month period imposed by Article 35 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63831/00, 26 September 2002).
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09

  LEKA v. ALBANIA

  Rn. 48 As to the date of the application, the Court has held that in accordance with the established practice of the Convention institutions and Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court, it normally considers the date an application is made to be the date of the first communication indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the application (see Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec), no. 63831/00, 26 September 2002).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 12668/08

  LAMBIN v. RUSSIA

  However, where a substantial interval followed before an applicant returned the application form, the Court could examine the particular circumstances of the case to determine what date should be regarded as the date of introduction with a view to calculating the running of the six-month period imposed by Article 35 of the Convention (see Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63831/00, 26 September 2002).
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 37829/05

  MELEK SIMA YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Quant à l'exception tirée du non-respect du délai de six mois, la Cour rappelle que, selon sa pratique constante, la date d'introduction d'une requête est celle de la première communication du requérant par laquelle il indique vouloir présenter une requête et donne des indications quant à la nature de celle-ci (Chalkley c. Royaume-Uni (déc), no 63831/00, 26 septembre 2002).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 26178/04

  MORENO CARMONA c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour rappelle que la date de l'introduction d'une requête est la date de la première lettre indiquant l'intention d'introduire une requête et donnant quelques indications quant à la nature de la requête (Chalkley c. Royaume-Uni (déc), no 63831/00, décision du 26 septembre 2002).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 16208/05

  [ENG]

  However, where a substantial interval follows before an applicant submits further information about his proposed application or returns the application form, the Court may examine the particular circumstances of the case to determine what date should be regarded as the date of introduction with a view to calculating the start-date of the six-month period imposed by Article 35 of the Convention (see Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63831/00, 26 September 2002).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 27623/06

  BELOV v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the applicant was afforded a flexible time-limit to complete an application form provided he did it "with reasonable expedition", which, in certain circumstances, could last for years (compare with Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63831/00, 26 September 2002, where two and a half years had passed between the dates of submission of the first letter and of the despatch of the completed application form, and still the former was considered to be the date of introduction).
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 17727/02

  DÜN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 11319/04

  KUKALO v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 9043/03

  TAYFUN YAYAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 18218/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 11369/03

  ÖZGÜR RADYO-SES RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYIN YAPIM VE TANITIM A.S. c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 73521/01

  SEMENOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 35667/02

  DEVINE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 73002/01

  KIJEWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 28328/03

  AIGNER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 10519/03

  BARANKEVICH v. RUSSIA