3

.
(= ,
)

(570 .. 495 ..)

..

ECHR

European Convention on Human Rights ()

ECtHR

European Court of Human Rights ()

...8.

.
I.

.10.

II.

....11.

.
I.

.15.

II.

...18.

III.

....23.

.
I.

.....26.
i.

...27.

ii.

().....30.

iii.

...31.

iv.

.35.

v.

...36.

vi.

.39.

II.

....39.

III.

.41.

.......45.

.
i.

...47.

ii.

..48.

iii.

...49.

iv.

....50.

v.

.50.

vi.

.....50.

vii.

...51.

viii.

.51.

ix.

.52.

.
I.

........................................................................................55.

II.

.
.......61.

III.

i.

...64.

7
ii.

.67.

I.

...
.69.

II.

....72.

III.

...74.

IV.

..75.

V.

i.

......76.

ii.

......78.

8

( ) 1950.

, (..
2329/1953).1

,
,
,
.


,
, , ,

,
.
,
.
To ()
, ,
,2
. ,

(living instrument)
,

,
.

. , , 1977,
.10.
2
. ,
, ,
2008, . 45.

,


, , , ,
.

9


.6 . 1
. 3
,
.
, ,
, ,
6 , .
Schenk 4




. 5

,

,
.
,


.
, , ..
.

http://tosyntagma.ant-sakkoulas.gr/theoria/item.php?id=404
Schenk , 12.7.1988
5
. , , 2010, .50.
4

10

I.

,

. 6
1948, . 12

:

, , ,
.
.
,
2462/1997, . 17 7
,
.

,
,
.6
. 1: v ov o ,
o v o o vo oo
o, vo oovo, o ooov o v
v v v ov o ,
o o vvov o o ov .(..).

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=grk, 01/03/2012.
1.
, , ,
. 2.
.
7

11
, . 8
. 1. v ov o ov v
oov o, o o o o..
. 2 .

. : 2. v v
o v o o oo, v
o o vo o ov o ooov, v
ov ovvv, v vov v vv v, v
ov v, v oovov v , v ov
v v ovv v, v ov
, v ov v v v
v.
, ,
,

,


,
, , .

II.

.
2001 19 . 3 :

9 9.
19 .3 .


9 . ,
9
,

. 19 .1 . , ,

12
,
. 8

177 . 2
,
. ,

.
. 177 .2 , , ,

. ,
. 9

10

,
. ,
1782/1988 :
,
, .22 : 2.
, ,
,
.
2225/1994
. 3
: 1.
,

... 11

., ., .79.
., ., .300.
10
http://www.dsanet.gr/1024x768Auth.htm, 18/03/2012.
11
2.
, .
(24)
1 5
. , ,

, .
9

13
. 4 , 10.06.2008,
.

,

.

()
3115/2003: . 1. , 2
19 ,
(....),
.

.

. 12

12

, , .4 . 2225/1994,
12 .

: 134, 135 . 1,
2, 135, 137, 137, 138, 139, 140,
143, 144, 146, 148 . 2, 150, 151, 157
. 1, 168 . 1, 187 . 1, 2, 207, 208 . 1, 264. ', , 270, 272, 275
. , 291 . 1 . , , 299, 322, 324 . 2, 3, 374, 380, 385
.
6/2008
: . 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 63, 64,
76, 93 97 , . 15 .1 .2168/1993,
. 5,6,7,8 .1729/1987, . 89, 90, 93 .1165/1968 . 211
. .
.

.
,
,
5/2005 . 729,


. 324 .2 .

. 4 5 . 2225/1994.

14
47/2005




, ,
(3)
,
, . (. 6).
3917/201113

. 5 - ,
..-

.3 .3 .

6, 7 8
.

13

http://www.e-crime.gr/nomothesia.htm, 16/03/2012.

15

I.

.19
.3 .
19 . . 9
( - ) 9
.

, ,
. , ,

19 9 . ( )
. 14


, ,
19 . 3 .,

,

14

. , . 21
2001, 2002, . 147-148.

16
.15 , ,
,
, ,
,
, ,
,
.

. 16
,
19 3 .
.
622/2003, 2383/2003, 42/2004


, .
, ,
,
. 17
, ,


. ,
. 2 . 1 .
7 .2 5 .5 .

- -

ratio. 18

15

. ,
2001, 2002, . 160.
16
. , , ,
2006.
17

. ,
, 2002, . 106.
18
. , , 2006, . 245.

17
, ,
a priori ad hoc


. 19

, ,
.
,
,
.

.

. . 22

.20

,
,


. ,
.
19 .3 .

.

2001

,

19

. ,
, 5/2005, . 732.
20
. , ., . 729.

18
. 21,
. .

in concreto

. 22
, 19 .3 .




, ,

. 23

II.

.
,
.

. ,

.

.
. 24

21

. - . --...
. -,
, 2003, . 64-65.
23
. -, ., . 120.
24
. , , 1992,
.14-15.
22

1996

19
.
. , .2 .7
.2408/1996
. (. 177
2 ). 25
177 .2

. ,
,
.


.
(
) 26


19
9 9
.5 .2 . 20 .1 .
177 .2 ad hoc
,
. 19 .3 .
19 .3 .

(. 171 .1 ) .484 .1 , . 510 .1 ). ,
,
,
. 520
.1 )
. 170 .2 ) 27

25

, ., . 13-14.
. ,
, 1998, . 262.
27
. , ,
, 2008, . 395-396.
26

,
.

20

.
25 . 1 . , . ,

.

,
.
25 .1
.


.
. 19 .3
9,9 19 .

. 28
, 1261/2009
-
-




. 29

2010 video .
2/201030
, ,

.
28

. ,
, , 5/2008, . 650.
29
1261/2009, , 4/2009, . 641.
30
, ,
, 2/2010.

21


.2 .8

,


.
,
,


.
,
,

.
,
:
. ,
. ,
.

. .
,
.
,
, , , ,
,
.
,
, , ..
,

, , ,
, ,
,
.

22

,
,

,
.

III.

Baumegrtel
.

23
.
,
,

..


.

,
. 31
. 450 .2
.

,
.

.




. ,

401 402 .
:
(401 . 1)
(401 . 2)
(402 . 1)
(402 . 1)
. (402 . 2)


.

31

G. Baumegrtel,
, , , 1983, . 117-128.

,


, . 559 .19 .

24
, ,


.

,
19 .
, 370 ,
.

, ,

.
.

,
. 32
(video)
(444 . 3 )

9 .1 . .17
.

. 370 .33

. 34

32

135/1976, 446/1949.


, .

. . .
34
. ,
, 1986, . 32-33.
33

. , ,
. 35

25

35

135/1976, 446/1949.

26
8,
,
.

correspondence/correspondance
,
.8
. 36

, , ,
.

8
. , ,


.1 .8 .37

,
,


.


.

.

36

J.E.S Fawcett, The application of the European Convention on human rights,

1987,. 228.
37
. , ,
6 8 , 1992,.

I.

i.

27
2.8.1984 Malone
38. O Malone

,
,
. Malone,
1978 ,

. 8 ,
. ,


.
.Malone
,


. , Malone


.
8
1969
.
,
,

,

.

38

. / . , .
, . 195-199.

, Malone
. 8 ,
.

28


,
.
, . 8 . 2 ,

,
.
,


.
, , Pettiti
Malone

,
.
, , 8

.


,
,


. 39

39

C. Ovey C/ R. White, Jacobs and White, he European Convention on Human

Rights, 2006, . 289.

, Halford
, 25.6.1997,
,
,
,
. .

29
8
.
,



.40
Allan , 5-11-2002,

.

,
.
.6 :1.

2.

. 41
Peck , 28.4.2003,
CCTV (Closed Circuit television,

)


. 42
40

. , ,
1998, . 334.
41
. -,
, 2003, . 114-115.
42
Therese Murphy and Gearoid O Cuinn, : New Technologies and the European
Court of Human Rights , Human Rights Law Review , 2010. Oxford University Press,
http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/4/601.full.pdf+html?sid=15f4ab42-4221-46709adf-1c2d03fa7d3f, 11/04/12.

Peck
, ,
,

. ,

30


,

.

ii.

()

Laskey, Jaggard Brown

19 1997,

(. 8 ).

video
. ,
(margin of appreciation)



,
,

. 43

Laskey, Jaggard Brown 19 1997.

. ,

, . 307.
43

A.D.T. (31-6-2000),

. 8 ,
,

31
.

. 44

iii.

3
, Othman
2009. , Othman(Abu Qatada)
, 17.01.2012,45 ,

3 ,
6
, .
, Othman 1994
, 1998,

.
.
2002

2005,
.
44

A.D.T. (31-6-2000). . , ., . 308.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=83519488&skin=hudocen&action=request
45

Othman o 1999

. ,

, , .

,
.
Othman ,
2000 .

32

. ,

Othman , .3
thman
. , 2005
,

,
Othman.


( 5 ) , ,
.

.
, , ,
. 6,
, ,
,
,

-
.
.
Othman (Abu Qatada)
, 3
,





.

, , .6
,



. ,
,
, Othman
. ,

33


.
,
. 6 ,


".



.
, ,

.

Gfgen , 1.06.2010.


,
. 46

46

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=83519488&skin=hudocen&action=request

Othman, ,
. ,
, .


. ,

. ,
Gfgen. ,

34


:

,
. Gfgen,
6,

.
Othman
,

,
.

,


,
.
Gfgen
.Gfgen ()
. 47

47

http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/02/08/othman-abu-qatada-v-the-unitedkingdom-questioning-gafgen/

.
,
3
. 6
. Othman

, Gfgen

.

35

iv.

Gillan Quinton , 12.01.2010, 48


, 8 .


. , ,

5 ( ), 8 (
), 10 ( ) 11 (
). 8

. , ,
5. ,
30 ,
.

http://blogs.ucc.ie/wordpress/ccjhr/2010/01/13/gillan-quinton-v-ukecthr-rules-uk-police-stop-and-search-powers-violate-art-8/,
16/03/2012.
, ,
. "
"
. 5.
,
,
.
" "
"

.
48

36
, ,

. 33.177
2004/5, 44.545 2005/6, 37.000 2006/7 117.278
2007/8. Carlile

. 2008 . Carlile

....


,
. 8 .

v.

S Marper , 4.12.2008,49




. , ,

49

Therese Murphy and Gearoid O Cuinn, : New Technologies and the European
Court of Human Rights , Human Rights Law Review , 2010. Oxford University Press,
http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/4/601.full.pdf+html?sid=15f4ab42-4221-46709adf-1c2d03fa7d3f, 11/04/12.

(technology-hungry
states),

8.
, - DNA-
,


,

37

,
. ,


,
.50
,
, ,

.
, ,
, ,
.51
, S Marper
, ()
: (...)
(DNA) . (...)
, (DNA)
(...)

. (...)
, ,

50

. -,
60 , , 09-12-2010.
51
Fennell, Harding, Jorg Nico, Swart Bert, Criminal Justice in Europe, comparative
study, 1995, . 269-270.

,

.

,
(...).


, ,
.
. (...)

38
8




. (...)52


,
DNA
,
,

,
6 . ,
DNA 6

, .8 .2,


.53

52

. , DNA, , ,
57, 2009, . 1881-1882.
53
., Phil. Fennell , Chr. Harding, Nico Jorg, Swart Bert, .271.

vi.

Murray , 8.2.1996,
.6 .3 Murray

.
Ocalan ,
12.3.2003, Ocalan
, ,
. ,

39

. 54

I.

Huvig Kruslin
, ,
24.4.1990,
.
Huvig ,
.2 .8 -
-
. ,


,

. 55
Kruslin

Baron Kruslin

Ocalan , 12.3.2003. . ,


, . 340.
55
, ., . 161.
54

,

,
Kruslin, 15

. Huvig
Kruslin ,

40

. ,
.
, ,

,

, ,

.
, Kruslin ,

,
,
, ,

.
, ,
8
,
. ,

,
Big Brother .
Eurofinacom , 2.9.2004,

. ,

. , Eurofinacom,


.



. 56

41

II.

Kopp , 25.3.1998, Huvig

Kruslin , 24.4.1990,


,
,
. 57

Valenzuela , 30.7.1998, 58
Kruslin
1990 ,

.
Ferrantelli Santagelo 7
1996
.6
,
.
Barbera, Messeque, Jabardo , 6.12.1988,
.59
56

Eurofinacom , 2.9.2004. . , ., . 348.

57

.., . 334-335.
Valenzuela , 30.7.1998. . , ., . 298.
59
, ., . 317.
58

,
.
,

, .6
.1
171 . 1
,
.

42

,
,

.6 .1 ,

. 13 . 60
Schenk , 12.7.1988,

,
.

,


,


. 61 , ,
( De Meyer, Salcedo, Pettiti, Spielmann)

. 62

60

. -, ., 2003, . 112.
., . -, . 113.
62
Schenk , 12.7.1988.
61

Schenk

,
Khan ,63 12.5.2000,



Schenk
,

43
,
.

Khan
,
,

,
. ,



.


.8 .2 ,
.6 .1



. ,

63

. -, ., . 113-114.

.8
.13

.
Parris , 4.7.2002,
.13


.

44



.
, . 6 .1


, ,


,






. 64

,
.

64

Therese Murphy and Gearoid O Cuinn, : New Technologies and the European
Court of Human Rights , Human Rights Law Review , 2010. Oxford University Press,
http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/4/601.full.pdf+html?sid=15f4ab42-4221-46709adf-1c2d03fa7d3f, 11/04/12.

,
.8 .2


. ,
fair balance
,
-
- .

45

Schleswig -

,
. 7 .1 89/397 .


. (. 204208, 171 .1 ).
, Steffensen C-276/01,



.
,

,


.6 . ,

. 65
Osterreichischer Rundfunk66 2003
,
(Rechnungshof)

,


.

46
M

.8 . ,

.
.

. -, ., 2003, . 52-54.
, ,
:
, , 46 /201, .
354.
65
66

.
Strafprozessordnung ( ),

, (
244 3). ,

, ( 245 1).

47

.


(Grundgesetz). 67

,
3.3.2004. 68



, 13 ,

. ,



. 69

67

E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights CFR

CDF,opinion,3.2003,
http://www.fd.uc.pt/igc/pdf/eu_fund_rights/CFR-CDF_opinion3-2003.pdf
68
. , ,
http://www.jurisconsultus.gr/pubs/uploads/1757.pdf, 08/03/2012
.69 VerfG 3.3.2004, Haas, Der grosse Lauschangriff, .3082,
Weigend/Capitant/Wannek, Droit constitutionnel penal allemand, . 619-629.

,



.



.

48

.

1990

8 .2
. ,
,

-

.
70


,
.8 .

video
.

Shengen investigated, A Comparative Interpretation of the

Schengen Provisions on International Police Cooperation in the light
of the European Convention on Human Right, 1996, . 150.
8,

.
70

,
342
. ,
,
,
.
, ,

49

.
, ,


.
.

, ,

. 71



,
.
,
,

. 72

71

E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights CFR

CDF,opinion,3.2003,
72

Chanta, Bevers, ., . 153.

50
,
"
",( fruits of poisonous tree)


. ,
,

. ,
.
,

.
,
.

, . 746 . 1
.

,

.

.
,
. ,
,

. 73

73

E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights CFR

CDF,opinion,3.2003,

51

74 ,


. , ,
,
, , - 1974

1950-.75
,
. . 427
: ,

.

. ,
,

.

,
, 9DU

, 226 .1
. 76
. 191
.
: 1.

.

74

Chanta, Bevers Hans, ., .180,181.

A. Drzemczewski , European human Rights Convention in Domestic Law, A
comparative study, 1983,.81.
76
Gearty, European civil liberties and the European convention on human rights, a
comparative study, 1997, . 296- 297.
75

52

,
.
,
,


.

.
, 10 1992,

,
, .
,

1978. . 78
.1

, ,
,
,
,
, ,
. 77

77

E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights CFR CD, opinion,

3.2003.

53



.
,


, , ,
.
78
,

,


,
.8 .79

78

40

,
.
,

.
.

,



.
.

, ,
. ,

,
.
79
Chanta J., Bevers Hans, Shengen investigated, A Comparative Interpretation of the
Schengen Provisions on International Police Cooperation in the light of the European
Convention on Human Right, . 136, 1996.

54

Patricia Hope-Hewitt & Harriett Harman
80, 1989,

,
.





.

80

Patricia Hope-Hewitt & Harriett Harman . , 9.5.1989.

I.

,


,
,
. 81


. , ,

55

,
,
, , ,
. 82

.8,

.83
81

. , , . 38 ,,
1982.
82
, ., . 38-40.
83
. , , 1995,.175.

, ,
,
, .
margin of appreciation o


. 84

.14 85,
,
,

, , . 86
, 8




.
,
Handyside , 1976,

56

.10

84

P. van Dijk/G.J.H van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on
Human Rights, 1998, .83.
85
o 14: v v:
v vvovv v o v
v ov v
n o, , o,
, , ov v ov, v ovv
o, o vv ov, o, vv
.
86
P. van Dijk/G.J.H van Hoof, ., . 41.

,
10.



.



,
.87




.


.88

.


. 89

57

87

. , ., . 85, 89-90.

88

. , ., . 335-336.
89
Gomien Donna, Harris David, Zwaak Leo,
: , .
, 2001, . 375

. 90
, Jalloh , 24
2004,
() Jalloh,
,
,

.
,
. O'Halloran
Francis 29 2007,
( ),
, .
,
:

, (...)

.

,
(,
...)
.
,

58

,
,
. ,
,
.

90

F. Pnar ler, Illegally Obtained Evidence in EuropeanTreaty of Human Rights

(ETHR), Law Annales de la Facult de droit d'Istanbul, Impr. Faklteler Matbaas,
2008, 40, 57,. 129-130.

Gfgen , 30 2008,
,
,
. 3 E
,

.
,
,
.
, , ,
,
( ) .


. , ,

,
,

.
,
.
,

,
:

59
-

-
,
, ,
,
. 91

91

F. Pnar ler, ., . 130-131.

, ,
,

,
(...) .

, , ,
:
(...) .


.
,
,
, .
- -


. ,


. 92

60

92

F. Pnar ler, ., . 133.

II.

.
2001,

.

,



. ,


, ,

. , ,


,
,

.

,

61
. , ,

,
.
2001, ,
. 25 .



-,
.

.
.


,

,
.
,

.
,

, stricto sensu( )

.
, ,

,
, , ,

,
. ,


,
.

62

. 80
in concreto
.

.

,

,
.

, .


,
93
, ,
. ,



.

63

93

. ,

, , 2009, . 216.

III.

i.

2001
- . 19 . 3 -.

,
.
, 622/2003
,
. 19 .3 .,
, .
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
( ,
) . , ,
1261/2009
, ,
.
177 .2,

64


.
, , ,
,

19 .3 .
. ,

. 94

94

110/2009, , , 1112/2010, . 1302.

, .
S Marper , 4.12.2008,






,

. 8
.

2.8.1984 Malone .
Malone
8

,

.


, , ,
,

.

65
,
, 24.4.1990, Huvig Kruslin ,

.
. 8


.

, ,

. 8 . 2
. ,

,

,
,

.
, ,

Peck , 28.4.2003,



.

66

ii.

The Greek legislator with the constitutional revision of 2001 added in the greek
legal system the absolute prohibition on the use of illegally obtained evidenceprovision of Art. 19 3 of the Greek Constitution-.
As stated by the Supreme Court- Areios Pagos-, in number 622/2003 decision,
upholding of superior human goods than those protected by the prohibition of
Art. 19 .3 , such as the respect of human life, should be exempted from this
prohibition. No other exception, either by order of the Criminal Code, can be
recognized in the constitutional prohibition, except for that which is to ensure
constitutionally protected legal goods more significant than those which are
protected by the ban of the art 19. (privacy, confidentiality ). In addition, with
the decision, 1261/2009 the Supreme Court held that the use of illegally
obtained evidence, for instance a video recording, is constitutionally prohibited
both in text and in the Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 177 Par. 2, and states
that permitted its use as evidence only if a felony s threatened punishment is
life imprisonment or the case that the illegally obtained evidence is the only
one and necessary means of proof of innocence of the accused, given the
gravity of the crime and respecting the principle of proportionality.
In terms, therefore, the constitutional provision adopted by the Greek State,
one observes that in the theoretical doctrine all views are converged that the
prohibition of the use of illegal evidence in interpreting the provision of C. 19
par.3 should not be interpreted strictly. Moreover, an absolute ban on the use
of illegal evidence would lead to absurd results and would shake the legislative
and administrative value scale.

67
Internationally, the ECtHR plays an important role in protecting the human
right of privacy as a commodity which is affected primarily by the obtaining of
evidence through the use of modern technology. The Strasbourg court in case
S and Marper v United Kingdom, 4.12.2008, after noting the "rapid pace of
developments in genetics and information technology so it can not overlook
the fact that in the future and personal life Genetic information may be
adversely affected in new ways or in a way that cannot be accurately
determined today, issued a warning to the increasingly technologically
developing nations (technology-hungry states), stressing that the uptake of
new technologies in the sphere of criminal jurisdiction should not lead to an
unacceptable weakening of the provision of Art. 8 ECHR.
Important thematic to take under consideration is the decision of the ECtHR of
2.8.1984 with whom the Court ruled on the case Malone v United Kingdom.
The Court accepted that in the case of Malone there were double violations of
Article 8 of the ECHR, both in the interception of telephone conversations and
in the delivery of meter data to the police, despite the fact that the follow-up
was in accordance with UK legislation. With this decision the ECtHR
emphasized the examination of the qualitative characteristics of the domestic
laws of participating states to regulate the operations of individual rights, that
balance in this case, the criminal policy and respect for individual rights took
precedence of the second, after holding vague and uncertain action limits of
the British authorities recognizing the risk of abuses of power.
Then, two decisions against France which were published the same day, ie on
24.4.1990, Huvig v France and Kruslin v. France, are pivotal for the ECtHR
case-law approach on the illegally obtained evidence. The ECtHR accepted
the violation of Art. 8 ECHR by France as it the French law on telephone
tapping does not guarantee the minimal respect of the right of privacy, creating
legal uncertainty.
In particular, however, these decisions gave specific interpretive approach to
forecasting requirement by law that sets the order of Art. 8 par. 2 ECHR for
the interference with the right to ensure respect for private and family life. The
Court noted that the law should define the categories of persons who may be
intercepted their telephone conversations, the nature of the offenses to be
explored through this surveillance in violation of the secrecy of
telecommunications, in addition, to provide the Authority who will decide on
such violations and to determine the maximum length of eavesdropping.
The fact, however, that the ECHR recognizes the contribution of advanced
technology in dealing with crime is readable in the case of Peck v United
Kingdom of 28.4.2003, where the ECtHR recognized the usefulness of CCTV
-Closed Circuit television- systems and accepted that the use of secret

68
surveillance measures to monitor e-mail and telephone communication is
necessary in a democratic society.

I.

,
,
, -, 1977.
, , ,
- ,1982.

, .
21
2001, , -, 2002.

,
, , -, 1992.

- ,
,
, -, 2003.

69
,
, , , 1986.
,
,
, , -, 1998.

, 19
.3 ..
, , , 2011.

,


, ,
, 2009.

,

2001, ,
, 2002.

./ .,
. ,
, 2002.

, ,
, -, 2010.

-,
,
, , 2008.

70
, ,
, 2008.

, ,
, ,
, 2001.

,

,
, , -, 2009.

,

, , , 1995.

,
, , -, 1998.

- ,
60 , ,
09-12-2010.

,
, 6 8 , ,
- , 1992.

,
, , - , 2002.

, , 3 ,
, - , 2006.

71

II.

Chantal Joubert, Hans Bevers, Shengen investigated, A Comparative

Interpretation of the Schengen Provisions on International Police
Cooperation in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights ,
Kluwer Law International, Hague, London, Boston, 1996.

Drzemczewski . Andrew , European human Rights Convention in

Domestic Law, A comparative study, Clarendon Press, 1983.

P. van Dijk/G.J.H van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European

Convention on Human Rights, KLUWER LAW, 1998.

Esser
R.,
Europaische
Vorgaben
Lebensmitteluberwachung, StV, 2004.

fur

die

amtliche

Fawcett J.E.S, The application of the European Convention on human

rights, Clarendon press, 1987.

Fennell Phil, Harding Chr., Jorg Nico, Swart Bert, Criminal Justice in
Europe, comparative study, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1995.

72
Gearty C.A., European civil liberties and the European convention on
human rights, a comparative study, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, Hague,
Boston, London, 1997.

Gomien Donna, Harris David, Zwaak Leo,

:
, . , , 2001.

Harris David., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd

edition, Oxford/New York, 2009.

Ovey C./ White R., Jacobs and White, The European Convention on
Human Rights, 4th edition, Oxford/New York 2006.

Reid Karren, A practitioner s guide to the European convention on

human rights, Sweet and Maxwell, 1998.

Weigend/ Capitant/ Wannek, Droit constitutionnel penal allemand, RSC

2005.

73

III.

, DNA,
, , 57, 2009, .1881.

, 2006.

,
, 5/2005, .732.

, ,
:
,
, 46 /2010, . 354.

.
, , 5/2008, .650.

74
Annales de la Facult de droit d'Istanbul, Impr. Faklteler Matbaas,
2008, 40, 57,. 66-137.
Baumegrtel Gottfried,
, , , 1983.

Haas, Der grosse Lauschangriff, NJW 2004.

Therese Murphy and Gearoid O Cuinn, New Technologies and the
European Court of Human Rights , Human Rights Law Review , Oxford
University Press, 2010.

IV.

http://www.dsanet.gr/1024x768.htm , 12/04/2012.
http://echrblog.blogspot.com/ , 12/04/2012.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en,
12/04/2012.
http://strasbourgobservers.com/category/by-topic/right-to-private-life/,
12/04/2012.
http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/02/08/othman-abu-qatada-v-theunited-kingdom-questioning-gafgen/, 17/03/2012.
http://www.nchr.gr/category.php?category_id=287 , 12/04/2012.
http://www.nchr.gr/media/gnwmateuseis_eeda/Site_version2/esda/ektel
esi_apofaseonEDAD2011.pdf , 12/04/2012.
Therese Murphy and Gearoid O Cuinn, : New Technologies and
the European Court of Human Rights , Human Rights Law Review ,
2010. Oxford University Press,
http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/4/601.full.pdf+html?
sid=15f4ab42-4221-4670-9adf-1c2d03fa7d3f,11/04/12.

75
Centre for criminal justice and human rights.
http://blogs.ucc.ie/wordpress/ccjhr/2010/01/13/gillan-quinton-v-uk-ecthrrules-uk-police-stop-and-search-powers-violate-art-8/ , 16/03/2012.
, ,
http://www.jurisconsultus.gr/pubs/uploads/1757.pdf, 08/03/2012.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=grk,
01/03/2012.
http://www.e-crime.gr/nomothesia.htm , 16/03/2012.
E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights CFR
CDF,opinion,3.2003,http://www.fd.uc.pt/igc/pdf/eu_fund_rights/C
FR-CDF_opinion3-2003.pdf

V.

i.

(....)

Handyside , 7.2.1976.
Klass , 6.9.1978.
Malone , 2.8.1984.
Schenk , 12.7.1988.
Barbera, Messeque, Jabardo , 6.12.1988.
Patricia Hope-Hewitt & Harriett Harman . ,
9.5.1989
Huvig , 24.4.1990.
Kruslin , 24.4.1990.
Murray , 8.2.1996.

76

Ferrantelli/Santagelo , 7.8.1996.
Laskey, Laggard and Brown , 20.1.1997.
Mantovanelli , 18.3.1997.
alford , 25.6.1997
Lambert , 1.7.1997.
, 22.10.1997
Kopp , 25.3.1998
Valenzuela Contreras , 30.7.1998.
Pelissier /Sassi , 25.3.1999.
Khan , 12.5.2000.
A.D.T. , 31.7.2000.
Parris , 4.7.2002.
Allan , 5.11.2002.
Ocalan , 12.3.2003.
Peck , 28.4.2003.
Eurofinacom , 2.9.2004.
Jalloh , 24.10. 2004
Copland , 3.4.2007.
O'Halloran Francis , 29.6.2007.
Ramanauskas , 5.2.2008.
Gfgen , 30.6.2008.
S Marper , 4.12.2008.
Gillan Quinton , 12.01.2010.
Gfgen , 1.06.2010.

77
Othman (Abu Qatada) , 17.01.2012.

ii.

(, )

1/2001
622/2003,
2383/2003
42/2004
570/2006
1351/2007(1 )
808/2008
110/2009,
, 11-12/2010, . 1302.

1261/2009, , 4/2009, . 641.

28 , 135/1976
446/1949

78

, 2/2010, . 832-837.

, , /2009,
.1003-1004.

79

,
.
(469 .. 399 ..)

. (= )