Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 8429/05
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  It has not been disputed between the parties that the search of the computer club and the seizure and retention of the computers allegedly containing personal information amounted to interference with the first applicant's right to respect for his "private life" (see Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 48, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 31, Series A no. 256-B; and Miailhe v. France (no. 1), 25 February 1993, § 28, Series A no. 256-C).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  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 Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 76, 27 September 2005).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  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 Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 76, 27 September 2005).

• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  Lastly, the Government pointed out that unlike the cases of Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 65755/01, 22 May 2008), Kopp v. Switzerland (25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II) and Heino v. Finland (no. 56720/09, 15 February 2011), the search-and-seizure operation had not touched upon any privileged material.
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  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 Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 76, 27 September 2005).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 11471/85

  CRÉMIEUX v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  It has not been disputed between the parties that the search of the computer club and the seizure and retention of the computers allegedly containing personal information amounted to interference with the first applicant's right to respect for his "private life" (see Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 48, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 31, Series A no. 256-B; and Miailhe v. France (no. 1), 25 February 1993, § 28, Series A no. 256-C).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  Lastly, the Government pointed out that unlike the cases of Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 65755/01, 22 May 2008), Kopp v. Switzerland (25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II) and Heino v. Finland (no. 56720/09, 15 February 2011), the search-and-seizure operation had not touched upon any privileged material.
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  ATANASOV AND OVCHAROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 8429/05

  While the Court accepts that, as a matter of principle, the retention of the computers for the duration of the criminal proceedings pursues the legitimate aim of securing physical evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, § 70, 17 January 2008), the lack of any consideration of the relevance of the seized information for the investigation and of the applicants" complaint regarding the personal character of some of the information stored on the computers rendered the judicial review formalistic and deprived the applicants of sufficient safeguards against abuse.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.04.2021 - C-852/19

  Gavanozov II - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in …

  Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteile vom 26. Juli 2007, Peev/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2007:0726JUD006420901, § 70); vom 22. Mai 2008, 11ya Stefanov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2008:0522JUD006575501, § 59); vom 15. Oktober 2013, Gutsanovi/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2013:1015JUD003452910, §§ 234 und 235); vom 30. September 2014, Prezhdarovi/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2014:0930JUD000842905, §§ 26 bis 28, 30, 31 und 49 bis 52); vom 16. Februar 2016, Govedarski/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2016:0216JUD003495712, §§ 38 bis 40, und 72 bis 75); vom 31. März 2016, Stoyanov u. a./Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2016:0331JUD005538810, § 152); und vom 9. Juni 2016, Popovi/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2016:0609JUD003965111, § 122).

  In seinem Urteil vom 30. September 2014, Prezhdarovi/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2014:0930JUD000842905, § 50), stellte der EGMR fest, dass das Fehlen klarer Regelungen im Hinblick auf den Umfang der gerichtlichen Nachprüfung sowie auch das gänzliche Fehlen eines wirksamen Rechtsbehelfs im Hinblick auf die Rechtmäßigkeit der und den Rechtsgrund für die Durchsuchung und Beschlagnahme ein Problem darstelle.

• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

  A search of residential and business premises entailing, as here, the seizure of equipment containing electronic data, is an interference with the "private life", "home" and "correspondence" of those concerned (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-31, Series A no. 251-B; Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2005-IV; and Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 33, 15 February 2011, as regards searches in business premises; Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 36, 7 June 2007, as regards the seizure of equipment containing electronic data from a person's home; and Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 71, 27 September 2005; Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV; and Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 8429/05, § 41, 30 September 2014, as regards the seizure of equipment containing electronic data from business premises).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 49617/22

  KAVECANSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court considers, first, that there was an interference with the applicant's exercise of his right to respect for his home and private life, since his business premises were searched and the police secured items belonging to him (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2005-IV; Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 33, 15 February 2011; Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 8429/05, § 41, 30 September 2014; and Popovi v. Bulgaria, no. 39651/11, § 103, 9 June 2016).

• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 45285/12

  HADZHIEVA v. BULGARIA

  Having regard to the finding of a violation under Article 8 as a result of a lack of action by the authorities to ensure effective protection of the applicant during the first two days after her parents' arrest, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, M.D. and Others v. Malta, no. 64791/10, § 84, 17 July 2012; and Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 8429/05, § 56, 30 September 2014).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 32600/12

  TRABAJO RUEDA c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner des lois permettant aux autorités d'enquête de réaliser des perquisitions sans autorisation préalable en cas d'urgence et a conclu à la violation de la Convention lorsque le contrôle judiciaire postérieur n'était pas effectif (Smirnov c. Russie, no 71362/01, § 45, 7 juin 2007, Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, §§ 45-48, 15 février 2011, Gutsanovi c. Bulgarie, no 34529/10, §§ 221-227, CEDH 2013 (extraits), Prezhdarovi c. Bulgarie, no 8429/05, §§ 46-52, 30 septembre 2014, Slavov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 58500/10, §§ 145-151, 10 novembre 2015).
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 22536/11

  ILIEVA v. BULGARIA

  Such a review had been even more necessary considering that the authorities had been unable to show that the cases had indeed been pressing, justifying immediate search and seizure without a judicial warrant (see Gutsanovi, §§ 218-25, and Govedarski, §§ 81-87, both cited above, and Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 8429/05, §§ 44-47, 30 September 2014).