EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 61838/10   

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte


    Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)



  • NJW-RR 2018, 294


Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)  

  • BGH, 15.05.2018 - VI ZR 233/17  

    Verwertbarkeit von Dashcam-Aufnahmen als Beweismittel im Unfallhaftpflichtprozess

    Art. 6 EMRK garantiert nur allgemein das Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (vgl. Baumgärtel/Laumen/Prütting, Handbuch der Beweislast, 3. Aufl.; S. 104; EGMR, NJW-RR 2018, 294, 298 mwN).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 61496/08  

    Private Chats im Büro: Wann darf der Chef mitlesen?

    After all, as this Court confirmed most recently in Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland (no. 61838/10, §§ 94-95, 18 October 2016):.
  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 70838/13  


    The Court has already held in the present case that video surveillance of an employee in the workplace, be it covert or not, must be considered as a considerable intrusion into the employee's private life (see paragraph 44 above), and hence it considers that it constitutes an interference within the meaning of Article 8. Any interference can only be justified under Article 8 § 2 if it is in accordance with the law, pursues one of more of the legitimate aims to which that provision refers and is necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve any such aim (see Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 60, 18 October 2016).

    40660/08 and 60641/08, § 95, ECHR 2012; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, § 83; Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 52, 18 October 2016; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 191, ECHR 2016; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy, cited above, § 131).

    Likewise, covert and systematic surveillance of a person in public places, including by means of video, and storing and subsequent use of the data obtained may interfere with private life (see Perry, cited above, §§ 39-43, and Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 52-59, 18 October 2016).

  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 931/13  


    As regards whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the right to privacy under Article 8 of the Convention is engaged given the publicly accessible nature of the taxation data processed and published by the applicant companies, the Court has constantly reiterated that the concept of "private life" is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008; and Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 52, 18 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 1874/13  


    I have already expressed my opinion in previous cases, such as Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10 and Trabajo Rueda v. Spain, no. 32600/12, that offensive behaviour is incompatible with the right to private life under the Convention.
  • EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12  


    It has on occasion found that the admission in evidence of information obtained without a legal basis in domestic law, and therefore not "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, did not, in the circumstances of the case, conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 76-81, ECHR 2001-IX; Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, §§ 91-100, 18 October 2016; and Basic v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, §§ 41-50, 25 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 32600/12  


    Je voudrais également renvoyer à l'affaire Vukota-Bojic c. Suisse (no 61838/10, 18 octobre 2016), dans laquelle j'ai exprimé une opinion dissidente avec l'idée que le droit protégé à la vie privée n'était pas compatible avec la violation des lois dans une société démocratique.
  • EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06  


    In light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant's complaint falls to be assessed as interference by a public authority with the applicant's exercise of his right to private life (see, in particular, Copland v. the United Kingdom, no. 62617/00, § 39, ECHR 2007-I; Avilkina and others, cited above, § 31 and, mutatis mutandis, Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 47, 18 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 40927/05  


    In the context of such investigating activities which lack public scrutiny and bear risks of abuse of power, the compatibility with the rule of law requires and the Court will assess whether domestic law provides adequate and effective protection against arbitrary interference with Article 8 rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, §§ 68 and 72, 18 October 2016).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?

Ablegen in

Benachrichtigen, wenn:

 Alle auswählen Alle auswählen


Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht