Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/54934.00-en-20060629/
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 21:29:46
Document Index: 48215257

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 41', '§ 64', '§ 48', '§ 52', '§ 68', '§ 27', '§ 26', '§ 56', '§ 54', '§ 39', '§ 72', '§ 46', '§ 21', '§ 70', '§ 46', '§ 114', '§ 43', '§ 30', '§ 46', '§ 45', '§ 90', '§ 88', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'art. 8', 'art. 8']

WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY / ECHR
WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY View
AppNr 54934/00
Articles 10; 13; 8
Citations 5-15-35-45-56-1813P1-366-1813
Application Number 54934/00
Represented by KALECK W., lawyer, Berlin ; SCHWAN, E. university professor, Berlin
Date of Introduction 10/01/2000
Date of Decision 29/06/2006
Articles 8 ; 10 ; 13
Law at Issue Act of 13 August 1968 on Restrictions on the Secrecy of Mail, Post and Telecommunications ; Fight against Crime Act of 28 October 1994 in the light of the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment of 14 July 1999 ; New G 10 Act entered into force on 26 June 2001
Strasbourg Case Law Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 41 ; Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 30-31, § 64 ; Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, pp. 22, 23, §§ 48, 51 ; Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52 ; Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 26, § 68 ; Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176 A, pp. 20, 21, §§ 27, 29 ; Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176 B, p. 52, § 26 ; Autronic AG v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 25, § 56 ; Stocké v. Germany, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 199, p. 19, § 54 ; Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, p. 500, § 39 ; Kopp v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports 1998 II, pp. 542-43, § 72 ; Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998 V, pp. 1924-25, § 46 ; Lambert v. France, judgment of 24 August 1998, Reports 1998 V, pp. 2238-39, § 21 ; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 70, 76, ECHR 2000 II ; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000 V ; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002 ; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002 III ; Prado Bugallo v. Spain, no. 58496/00, § 30, 18 February 2003 ; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV ; Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, § 45, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts) ; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 90, ECHR 2005 IV ; Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005 ; Voyager Limited v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35045/97, 4 September 2001 ; Ivison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39030/97, 16 April 2002 ; Petersen v. Germany (dec.), nos. 38282/97, 68891/01, 12 January 2006
Keywords "(Art. 10) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION -{GENERAL}" "(Art. 10-2) NATIONAL SECURITY" "(Art. 10-2) PREVENTION OF CRIME" "(Art. 8-1) RESPECT FOR CORRESPONDENCE" "(Art. 8-1) RESPECT FOR PRIVATE LIFE" "(Art. 8-2) NATIONAL SECURITY" "(Art. 8-2) PRESCRIBED BY LAW" "(Art. 8-2) PUBLIC SAFETY" "(Art. 8-2) SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE" "MARGIN OF APPRECIATION"
8 (art. 8-2) interference
5 (art. 8-2) foreseeability