case law of the european court of human rights concerning the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12. Murray v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A (No violation of the Convention). As far as a person suspected of terrorism is concerned, entry into and search of her home for the purpose of effecting the arrest; record of personal details and photograph without her consent. .....................................................................................72 13. Z. v. Finland, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I (Article 8 of the Convention). Seizure of medical records and their inclusion in investigation file without the patient’s prior consent in criminal proceedings; limitation of the duration of the confidentiality of the medical data concerned; publication of her identity and HIV infection in a court judgment given in those proceedings. ......................................79 14. Halford v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention). Interception of telephone calls made on internal telecommunications system operated by police and on public network; lack of regulation by domestic law. .............................................................85 15. Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV (No violation of the Convention). Lack of possibility for a patient, prior to the communication of personal and confidential medical data by medical authority to a social services authority, to challenge the measure before a court. .....................................89 16. M.S. v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV (No violation of the Convention). Communication, without the patient’s consent, of personal and confidential medical data by one public authority to another and lack of possibility for patient, prior to the measure, to challenge it before a court. ...........................92 17. Kopp v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Monitoring of a law firm’s telephone lines on orders of the Federal Public Prosecutor....................................................................96 18. Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Monitoring of private telephone line in connection with criminal proceedings against subscriber.........................101 19. Lambert v. France, judgment of 24 August 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Judgment whereby Court of Cassation refused a person locus standi to complain of interception of some of his telephone conversations, on the ground that it was a third party’s line that had been tapped...............105 20. Fressoz and Roire v. France , judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I (Violation of Article 10 of the Convention). Conviction for unlawful possession of photocopies of Inland Revenue documents (income tax returns) following publication by the satirical weekly Canard enchaîné of details of the salary of the chairman of Peugeot motor cars. .........................................................................................................109 21. Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1999, applications nos.31417/96 and 32377/96, and Eur. Court HR, Smith and Grady v. The United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1999, applications nos.33985/96 and 33986/96 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Dismissal of homosexuals from the armed forces following investigations into private life (especially their sexual orientation). ...................113 The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int )
22. Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, judgment of 21 December 1999, application no. 33290/96 (Violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention). Refusal to award custody to father on the grounds that he is homosexual and lives with another man. ...........................118 23. Amann v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 February 2000, application no. 27798/95 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Recording a telephone conversation concerning business activities, and creation of a card index and storing of data, both by the Public Prosecutor............................................................................................................................121 24. Rotaru v. Romania, judgment of 4 May 2000, application no. 28341/95 (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention). Storing and use of personal data held by the Romanian intelligence services and absence of the possibility of refuting their accuracy....................125 25. Khan v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 12 May 2000, application no. 35394/97 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Absence of legal basis for interception of conversation by means of listening device installed on private property. ............................129 26. P.G. and J.H. v. The United Kingdom , judgment of 25 September 2001, application no. 44787/98 (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention). Absence of a legal basis for the installation of a covert listening device in private property and for the covert recording of voice samples at a police station; acquisition by the police of information concerning the use of a private telephone..........................................................................................................131 27. Krone Verlag Gmbh & Co. KG v. Austria, judgment of 26 February 2002, no. 34315/96 (Violation of Article 10 of the Convention). Conviction of applicant company for publishing photographs of a politician..................................................................................................135 28. Mikulić v. Croatia, judgment of 7 February 2002, application no. 53176/99 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). People in the applicant’s situation had a vital interest in receiving the information necessary to uncover the truth about an important aspect of their personal identity: establishing paternity..............................................................................137 29. Armstrong v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 19 March 2002, no. 48521/99 (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention) Conviction for conspiracy to supply drugs on evidence resulting from covert surveillance involving observation and recording of conversations.......................................................................................................................140 30. Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 11 July 2002 (application no. 28957/95). (Violation of articles 8 of the Convention. Recognition of a sex conversion by the employer and social services. ..............................................................................................141 31. M.G v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 September 2002, no. 39393/98 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention) Requested access to his social service records...................145 32. Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 2002, no. 47114/99 (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention) Interception of pager messages by the police and subsequent reference to them at the trial. ...........................................................147 33. Allan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 2002, application no. 48539/99 (Violation of Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention) The use of covert audio and video surveillance within a prison cell and the prison visiting area...............................................149 34. A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 December 2002, no. 35373/97 (No violation of Articles 6.1, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention) Personal information stated and derogatory The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int )
Page 1: DP (2006) CASE LAW CASE LAW OF THE
Page 6 and 7: statements made by an MP subsequent
Page 9: JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
Page 12 and 13: home and correspondence) and Articl
Page 14 and 15: - the lack of notification of surve
Page 16 and 17: 2. Malone v. The United Kingdom, ju
Page 18 and 19: [see paragraphs 63 and 85 of the ju
Page 20 and 21: This finding removed the need for t
Page 22 and 23: 3. Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 2
Page 24 and 25: public authorities are empowered to
Page 26 and 27: For further information, reference
Page 28 and 29: B. Proceedings before the Commissio
Page 30 and 31: D. Application of Article 50 1. Pec
Page 32 and 33: 5. Kruslin v. France, judgment of 2
Page 34 and 35: The Court pointed out, firstly, tha
Page 36 and 37: [See paragraph 40 of the judgment a
Page 38 and 39: 13. Miss B., wishing to marry her f
Page 40 and 41: II. THE MERITS A. Alleged violation
Page 42 and 43: 50. In the Government’s opinion,
Page 44 and 45: (b) Documents 59. (a) The applicant
Page 47 and 48: 7. Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment o
Page 49 and 50: een aware of. Moreover, the applica
Page 51 and 52: 8. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of
Page 53 and 54: 2. In the Court's opinion, the inte
Page 55 and 56:
9. Funke v. France judgment of 25 F
Page 57 and 58:
B. Proceedings before the European
Page 59 and 60:
1. "In accordance with the law” T
Page 61 and 62:
Matscher (Austrian) , Mr L.E. Petti
Page 63 and 64:
10. Hoffmann v. Austria, judgment o
Page 65 and 66:
The Court therefore accepted that t
Page 67 and 68:
Article 50 "If the Court finds that
Page 69 and 70:
B. Proceedings before the European
Page 71 and 72:
In accordance with the Convention,
Page 73 and 74:
3. Mrs Murray was arrested by the A
Page 75 and 76:
4. The level of "suspicion" require
Page 77 and 78:
arrest and detention of persons sus
Page 79 and 80:
13. Z. v. Finland, judgment of 25 F
Page 81 and 82:
the Court have jurisdiction to ente
Page 83 and 84:
(iii) Duration of the confidentiali
Page 85 and 86:
14. Halford v. The United Kingdom,
Page 87 and 88:
2. The office telephones: (i) exist
Page 89 and 90:
15. Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden,
Page 91 and 92:
Accordingly, it transpired from the
Page 93 and 94:
In May 1992 the Social Insurance Of
Page 95 and 96:
Accordingly, it appeared from the v
Page 97 and 98:
Procedure Act (“the FCPA”) whic
Page 99 and 100:
Secondly, tapping and other forms o
Page 101 and 102:
18. Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain,
Page 103 and 104:
exercise of his right to respect fo
Page 105 and 106:
19. Lambert v. France, judgment of
Page 107 and 108:
The second requirement which derive
Page 109 and 110:
20. Fressoz and Roire v. France , j
Page 111 and 112:
The Court had in particular to dete
Page 113 and 114:
21. Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. The
Page 115 and 116:
were not in question. Insofar as th
Page 117 and 118:
public order aims pursued by the Go
Page 119 and 120:
Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Presid
Page 121 and 122:
23. Amann v. Switzerland, judgment
Page 123 and 124:
was the surveillance of persons sus
Page 125 and 126:
24. Rotaru v. Romania, judgment of
Page 127 and 128:
As to the Government’s submission
Page 129 and 130:
25. Khan v. The United Kingdom, jud
Page 131 and 132:
26. P.G. and J.H. v. The United Kin
Page 133 and 134:
evidence was heard by the judge alo
Page 135 and 136:
27. Krone Verlag Gmbh & Co. KG v. A
Page 137 and 138:
28. Mikulić v. Croatia, judgment o
Page 139 and 140:
means enabling an independent autho
Page 141 and 142:
30. Christine Goodwin v. the United
Page 143 and 144:
Though the Court did not underestim
Page 145 and 146:
31. M.G v. the United Kingdom, judg
Page 147 and 148:
32. Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kin
Page 149 and 150:
33. Allan v. the United Kingdom, ju
Page 151 and 152:
34. A. v. the United Kingdom, judgm
Page 153 and 154:
in the reporting of parliamentary p
Page 155 and 156:
35. Peck v. the United Kingdom, jud
Page 157 and 158:
The application was lodged with the
Page 159 and 160:
36. Odièvre v. France (application
Page 161 and 162:
child’s, and subsequently the adu
Page 163 and 164:
37. Perry. v. the United Kingdom, j
Page 165 and 166:
The Court noted that the photograph
Page 167 and 168:
The main task of the Court was to a
Page 169 and 170:
The Court noted that the matters co
Page 171 and 172:
The applicant complained under Arti
Page 173 and 174:
On 16 and 26 September 2003 the Pre
Page 175 and 176:
43. Wisse v. France, judgment of 20
Page 177 and 178:
44. Turek v. Slovakia , judgment of
Page 179 and 180:
violation of his right to respect f
Page 181 and 182:
Ms Segerstedt-Wiberg is the daughte
Page 183 and 184:
that background, the Court found th
Page 185 and 186:
the Security Police whether to advi
Page 187 and 188:
parquet, au motif que la présentat
Page 189 and 190:
41. Enfin, la Cour estime que les i
Page 191 and 192:
interception of telecommunications
Page 193 and 194:
egards the monitoring of individual
Page 195 and 196:
5. the counterfeiting of money (Gel
Page 197 and 198:
amended G 10 Act. The federal legis
Page 199 and 200:
sentence, no notification was given
Page 201 and 202:
Moreover, the first applicant had f
Page 203 and 204:
80. Such interferences are justifie
Page 205 and 206:
Law or arbitrariness in its applica
Page 207 and 208:
106. The Court reiterates that when
Page 209 and 210:
measures remained in force for a fa
Page 211 and 212:
applied and data be transmitted if
Page 213 and 214:
(see above, paragraph74). She relie
Page 215 and 216:
151. The Court observes that in the
Page 217 and 218:
48. Panteleyenko v. Ukraine (no. 11
Page 219 and 220:
The Court also noted that the appli
Page 221:
The applicant complained about the
show all

case law of the european court of human rights concerning the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?