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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) A P P E N D I X Text of the Articles of the Conventionreferred to in the press release "1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; ..." Article 8 "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Article 50 "If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the (...) Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party”. 50
8. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no.251-B (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Search of a lawyer’s office in course of criminal proceedings against a third party. 555 16.12.92 Press release issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 16 December 1992 in the case of Niemietz v. Germany, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the search of the applicant's law office had given rise to a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence). It dismissed unanimously his claim for just satisfaction under Article 50 4 . The judgment was read out in open court by Mr Rolv Ryssdal, the President of the Court. I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE A. Principal facts On 9 December 1985 a letter concerning criminal proceedings pending before the Freising District Court was sent by telefax from the Freiburg post office to a judge of that court. It bore the signature "Klaus Wegner" - possibly a fictitious person - followed by the words "on behalf of the Anti-clerical Working Group of the Freiburg Bunte Liste ". The applicant had for some years been chairman of the Bunte Liste , which is a local political party, and the colleague with whom he shared his office had also been active on its behalf. 2. In view of the contents of the letter, criminal proceedings were subsequently instituted against Klaus Wegner for insulting behaviour. In the course of the investigations the Munich District Court issued, on 8 August 1986, a warrant to search, inter alia, the applicant's office for and to seize any documents revealing the identity of Klaus Wegner; the reason given in the warrant was that mail for the Bunte Liste was sent to a post-office box the contents of which had, until 1985, been forwarded to the applicant's office. The search was effected on 13 November 1986; four cabinets with data concerning clients and six individual files were examined but no relevant documents were found. 3. On 27 March 1987 the Munich I Regional Court declared the applicant's appeal against the search warrant to be inadmissible, on the ground that it had already been executed. It considered that there was no legal interest in having the warrant declared unlawful and it also noted, amongst other things, that it could not be assumed that mail for the Bunte Liste could concern a lawyer-client relationship. On 18 August 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept for 4 The text of the Articles mentioned in this release is appended. 51
Page 1: DP (2006) CASE LAW CASE LAW OF THE
Page 4 and 5: 12. Murray v. The United Kingdom, j
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: een aware of. Moreover, the applica
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?