Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 8 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRUSLIN v. FRANCE
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 06.05.1988 - 11801/85
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 176-A
Wird zitiert von ... (186) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
The telephone tapping therefore amounted to an "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his "correspondence" and his "private life" (see the Klass and Others judgment of 8 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 41, and the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 30, § 64).Like the Government and the Delegate, the Court points out, firstly, that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, the Malone judgment previously cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, § 79, and the Eriksson judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 25, § 62).
Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity... to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference." (Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, §§ 67-68).
This was truer still at the material time, so that Mr Kruslin did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (see the Malone judgment previously cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, § 79).
- EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
Admittedly the Court had held that "the word "law" in the expression "prescribed by law" cover[ed] not only statute but also unwritten law" (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47, the Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 44, and the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152, p. 22, § 52), but in those instances the Court was, so the Delegate maintained, thinking only of the common-law system.Were it to overlook case-law, the Court would undermine the legal system of the Continental States almost as much as the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979 would have "struck at the very roots" of the United Kingdom's legal system if it had excluded the common law from the concept of "law" (Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47).
- EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85
ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
Like the Government and the Delegate, the Court points out, firstly, that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, the Malone judgment previously cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, § 79, and the Eriksson judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 25, § 62).
- EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
The Court has indeed taken account of case-law in such countries on more than one occasion (see, in particular, the Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 20, § 29, the Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141, pp. 16-17, § 29, and the Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, pp. 18-19, § 30). - EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83
CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
Admittedly the Court had held that "the word "law" in the expression "prescribed by law" cover[ed] not only statute but also unwritten law" (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47, the Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 44, and the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152, p. 22, § 52), but in those instances the Court was, so the Delegate maintained, thinking only of the common-law system. - EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
The Court has indeed taken account of case-law in such countries on more than one occasion (see, in particular, the Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 20, § 29, the Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141, pp. 16-17, § 29, and the Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, pp. 18-19, § 30). - EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76
DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
Admittedly the Court had held that "the word "law" in the expression "prescribed by law" cover[ed] not only statute but also unwritten law" (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 30, § 47, the Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 19, § 44, and the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152, p. 22, § 52), but in those instances the Court was, so the Delegate maintained, thinking only of the common-law system. - EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84
HUVIG c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
[ï?ª] Note by the Registrar: Case no. 4/1989/164/220. - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
... [In its judgment of 25 March 1983 in the case of Silver and Others the Court] held that "a law which confers a discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion", although the detailed procedures and conditions to be observed do not necessarily have to be incorporated in rules of substantive law (ibid., Series A no. 61, pp. 33-34, §§ 88-89). - EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
The telephone tapping therefore amounted to an "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his "correspondence" and his "private life" (see the Klass and Others judgment of 8 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 41, and the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 30, § 64).
- EGMR, 12.11.2008 - 34503/97
Demir und Baykara ./. Türkei - Streikrecht für Beamte
For the purposes of the Convention the term "law" covers both enactments and the interpretation thereof by the courts (Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A), such that divergences in case-law create uncertainty and a lack of foreseeability that are capable of raising doubt as to the legality of an interference with a Convention right (see Driha v. Romania, no. 29556/02, § 32, 21 February 2008; and Paduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, § 98, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 13.09.2018 - 58170/13
Big Brother Watch u.a./United Kingdom - Massenhafte Überwachung von Kommunikation
These safeguards, which were first set out in Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, § 34, Series A no. 176 B and Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 35, Series A no. 176-A, had been applied routinely by the Court in its caselaw on the interception of communications and in two cases specifically concerning the bulk interception of communications (see Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006XI and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008). - EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 35623/05
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens (Datenschutz; GPS-Überwachung; Observation; …
Nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshof bedeutet der Ausdruck "gesetzlich vorgesehen" nach Artikel 8 Abs. 2 zunächst, dass die Maßnahme eine gewisse innerstaatliche Rechtsgrundlage haben muss; er betrifft auch die Qualität des in Rede gestellten Gesetzes und setzt voraus, dass die betroffene Person Zugang zu dem Gesetz hat und darüber hinaus erkennen kann, welche Folgen es für sie hat; außerdem muss das Gesetz rechtsstaatlichen Anforderungen genügen (siehe u. a. Rechtssachen Kruslin ./. Frankreich, 24. April 1990, Randnr. 27, Serie A Band 176-A;… Lambert, a. a. O., Randnr. 23;… und Perry ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, a. a. O., Randnr. 45).
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00
Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …
84. Der Gerichtshof weist erneut darauf hin, dass der Ausdruck "gesetzlich vorgesehen" nach Artikel 8 Abs. 2 zunächst bedeutet, dass die gerügte Maßnahme eine gewisse innerstaatliche Rechtsgrundlage haben muss; er betrifft auch die Qualität des in Rede gestellten Gesetzes und setzt voraus, dass die betroffene Person Zugang zu dem Gesetz hat und darüber hinaus erkennen kann, welche Folgen es für sie hat; außerdem muss das Gesetz rechtsstaatlichen Anforderungen genügen (siehe u. a. Urteil Kruslin ./. Frankreich vom 24. April 1990, Serie A Band 176-A, S. 20, Nr. 27; Urteil Huvig ./. Frankreich vom 24. April 1990, Serie A Band 176-B, S. 52, Nr. 26;… Lambert , a.a.O., S. 2239, Nr. 23; und Perry ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 63737/00, Nr. 45, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95
AMANN c. SUISSE
The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see the Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, pp. 21-22, § 29, and the Kopp judgment cited above, p. 541, § 59). - EuGH, 17.12.2015 - C-419/14
Die Übertragung des Know-hows, durch das der Betrieb der Erotik-Website …
Da die Überwachung des Telekommunikationsverkehrs einen Eingriff in die Ausübung des durch Art. 8 Abs. 1 EMRK garantierten Rechts darstellt (vgl. u. a. Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte vom 6. September 1978, Klass u. a./Deutschland, Serie A, Bd. 28, Nr. 41, vom 2. August 1984, Malone/Vereinigtes Königreich, Serie A, Bd. 82, Nr. 64, vom 24. April 1990, Kruslin/Frankreich und Huvig/Frankreich, Serie A, Bd. 176-A und 176-B, Nr. 26 und Nr. 25, sowie die Entscheidung Weber und Saravia/Deutschland, Beschwerde Nr. 54934/00, EGMR 2006-XI, Nr. 79), ist sie somit auch als Einschränkung der Ausübung des in Art. 7 der Charta verankerten Rechts anzusehen. - EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95
ROTARU v. ROMANIA
Dans ce contexte, notre Cour conclut à la violation des articles 8, 13 et 6 § 1. Conformément à sa jurisprudence constante (arrêt Malone c. Royaume-Uni du 2 août 1984, série A no 82, pp. 36 et 38-39, §§ 80 et 87-88 ; arrêts Kruslin et Huvig c. France du 24 avril 1990, série A no 176-A, pp. 24-25, §§ 36-37, et 176-B, pp. 56-57, §§ 35-36 ; arrêt Halford c. Royaume-Uni du 25 juin 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-III, p. 1017, § 51 ; arrêt Kopp c. Suisse du 25 mars 1998, Recueil 1998-II, p. 543, §§ 75-76 ; et arrêt Amann c. Suisse [GC], no 27798/95, §§ 61-62 et 77-81, CEDH 2000-II), elle estime que les règles du droit interne disposant que peuvent être recueillis, consignés et archivés dans des dossiers secrets des renseignements touchant la sécurité nationale ne présentent pas un degré suffisant de prévisibilité. - EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37138/14
Ungarns Anti-Terror-Gesetz ist menschenrechtswidrig
The expression "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 § 2 requires, first, that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, who must, moreover, be able to foresee its consequences for him (see, among other authorities, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 27, Series A no. 176-A; Huvig, cited above, § 26; Lambert v. France, 24 August 1998, § 23, Reports 1998-V; Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, § 45, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2), no. 71525/01, § 61, 26 April 2007; Association for European Integration, cited above, § 71; and Liberty, cited above, § 59). - EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
Moreover, it is a firmly established part of the legal tradition of the States party to the Convention that case-law, as one of the sources of the law, necessarily contributes to the gradual development of the criminal law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A). - EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
However, it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A, and Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998-II). - EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
- EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04
KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE
- EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND
- EuGH, 15.03.2017 - C-528/15
Al Chodor - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Kriterien und Verfahren zur …
- EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 3413/09
LACHIRI c. BELGIQUE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.04.2011 - C-70/10
Rechtsangleichung
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94
VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 42750/09
Spanien muss Eta-Attentäterin freilassen
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.06.2014 - Gutachten 2/13
Abschluss internationaler Übereinkünfte durch die Union - Beitritt der Union zur …
- EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88
THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit
- EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 27510/08
Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern kann von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt sein
- EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
B. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 12675/05
GSELL c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87
HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE
- EGMR, 25.03.1998 - 23224/94
KOPP v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88
CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.09.2016 - Gutachten 1/15
Gutachten gemäß Artikel 218 Absatz 11 AEUV - Gutachtenantrag - Zulässigkeit - …
- EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 75909/01
Sud Fondi S.r.l. u.a. ./. Italien
- EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14838/89
A. v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 31446/12
BEN FAIZA c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 27853/09
X v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 25337/94
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens / der Korrespondenz (Telefonüberwachung; …
- EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12
MATANOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 30181/05
PRUTEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09
SHIMOVOLOS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07
NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 16.12.1997 - 21353/93
CAMENZIND v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98
EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
- EKMR, 18.05.1998 - 29839/96
REMMERS AND HAMER v. THE NETHERLANDS
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.07.2018 - C-310/16
Dzivev u.a.
- EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88
HENTRICH v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 24209/94
Y.F. c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 59552/08
ROHLENA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 11882/10
PENTIKÄINEN c. FINLANDE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 01.03.2007 - C-76/06
Britannia Alloys & Chemicals / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Kartell - …
- EGMR, 22.12.2015 - 28601/11
G.S.B. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06
PREVITI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 44774/98
LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10
Gesetzlichkeitsprinzip (Vorhersehbarkeit der Strafdrohung und Ermessen des …
- EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 58753/00
EUROFINACOM contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97
POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 31.10.2002 - 37295/97
YILDIZ v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 37048/04
GIORGI NIKOLAISHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 51357/07
NAIT-LIMAN c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02
IORDACHI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11
DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00
ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02
CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06
SURIKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11
VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.06.2015 - 44262/10
MORENO DIAZ PEÑA ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 43750/06
NUSRET KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 70489/17
ALGIRDAS BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10
IVASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03
POROWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 14946/08
MESUT YURTSEVER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08
SEFILYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98
ALIEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39042/97
KUZNETSOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 32600/12
TRABAJO RUEDA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 30083/10
KARABEYOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10
GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 37926/05
R & L, S.R.O. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02
TITARENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 71525/01
DUMITRU POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 46210/99
WRETLUND v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 2799/16
SHIPS WASTE OIL COLLECTOR B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06
YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54468/09
HUHTAMAKI v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09
HEINO v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 25.11.1997 - 24348/94
GRIGORIADES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 34288/04
IHSAN AY v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 59552/08
ROHLENA c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 38817/04
VOMOCIL AND ART 38, A.S. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39483/98
NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.07.1998 - 27671/95
VALENZUELA CONTRERAS c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13
CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 11332/04
ZHELYAZKOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
LAMBERT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.10.1996 - 15943/90
DOMENICHINI v. ITALY
- EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07
MOROZ v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 55959/14
BORCEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 14064/07
CARIELLO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 4023/04
AMANALACHIOAI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 21740/02
BOCK ET PALADE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 18791/03
GROSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 8704/03
VAN DER GRAAF v. the NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 28496/95
E.K. c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27079/04
NATSEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09
FELDMAN v. UKRAINE (NO. 2)
- EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
HARJU v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 19348/04
Sorvisto ./. Finnland
- EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03
STITIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 46794/99
PANARISI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 13396/03
IULIANO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 08.06.2004 - 40905/98
HILDA HAFSTEINSDOTTIR v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 40679/98
DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 15211/89
CALOGERO DIANA v. ITALY
- EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 15646/18
BÎZDÎGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 69762/12
BUDAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 39273/07
MAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 35294/11
GABRIELA KAISER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 22767/08
DRAGOS IOAN RUSU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 48158/11
X ET Y c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 11625/07
D'AURIA ET BALSAMO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 12739/05
GORANOVA-KARAENEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 42284/05
NUR RADYO VE TELEVIZYON YAYINCILIGI A.S. c. TURQUIE (n° 2)
- EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02
SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 30392/03
MARCHIANI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 24320/03
GRAVIANO (II) c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35109/02
SCHMIDT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 162/04
RITA IPPOLITI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 50073/99
CHADIMOVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 36404/97
SOINI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 35083/97
GOUSSEV AND MARENK v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 27310/95
AGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45027/98
NARINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98
KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 24638/94
CARBONARA ET VENTURA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84
- EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 3409/10
AZER AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 7198/07
BAKKER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 42671/11
SOMOGYI ET GREGUSS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 18667/11
CALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 3276/10
SHMUSHKOVYCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 47091/09
PASTYRÍK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 37700/05
SEYIDZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 25.09.2006 - 17060/02
COBAN c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 60033/00
L.M. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 38827/02
YAVUZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 16269/02
AALMOES AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 50210/99
Recht auf Achtung der Privatsphäre und der unüberwachten Korrespondenz (Erfassung …
- EGMR, 06.01.2004 - 46170/99
ZIROVNICKY contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 57248/00
CHISHTI v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 58341/00
MADSEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 09.11.1999 - 26449/95
SPACEK, s.r.o. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EKMR, 07.03.1996 - 25987/94
HINS AND HUGENHOLTZ v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR - 1458/07
ART 38, A.S. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 34467/15
SÂRBU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 57275/17
FRANTZESKAKI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 28819/12
CAPRIOTTI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 5548/05
ISLAM-ITTIHAD ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 44174/06
CHAGNON ET FOURNIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 20689/08
W. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 28139/06
GIUGLIANO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 57752/00
MATHERON c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.01.2002 - 43467/98
TURQUIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 44293/98
REINA MUNOZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 26145/95
OGUZ AND OGUZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 36876/97
BANCO DE FINANZAS E INVERSIONES, S.A. contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 19.01.1999 - 33763/96
WEBORA v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 04.03.1998 - 34180/96
HAAS AND HAASOVA v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
- EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 26739/95
HELIN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EKMR, 17.01.1996 - 25512/94
PETERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 21009/92
GUSTAVSSON v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93
CHRISTIE c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EKMR, 02.03.1994 - 21837/93
TALIRZ v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 13.10.1993 - 18116/91
HAUER AND GUGGENHEIM v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 79917/13
BÎRSAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
LACHOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 39254/07
DURAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 51480/99
BULUT v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 40045/98
GREUTER v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 25745/07
AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.03.1999 - 32846/96
YAGIZ v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96
HILDEBRAND v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 33127/96
T.D. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28630/95
RAIFFEISENBANK KÖTSCHACH-MAUTHEN v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 06.04.1994 - 20555/92
VAN PELT v. THE NETHERLANDS