- Page 1: DP (2006) CASE LAW CASE LAW OF THE
- Page 4 and 5: 12. Murray v. The United Kingdom, j
- 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