Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BESTRY v. POLAND

  No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BESTRY v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 108, ECHR 2012 and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 82-84, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  The Court considers that the domestic courts thereby recognised that the present case involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of the reputation and rights of others and thus carried out the appropriate balancing exercise (see, mutatis mutandis, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006, CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania, cited above, §§ 113-115, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  Assuming that the Government's submissions might be understood as a plea on inadmissibility on the grounds of an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no.31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among many other authorities, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  Assuming that the Government's submissions might be understood as a plea on inadmissibility on the grounds of an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no.31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among many other authorities, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  Assuming that the Government's submissions might be understood as a plea on inadmissibility on the grounds of an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no.31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05

  M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  Where a statement amounts to a value judgement, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgement without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, judgment of 24 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 236, § 47; and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 76, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 60818/10

  Identifizierende Berichterstattung kann von Meinungsfreiheit umfasst sein

  Therefore, as the publication at issue contributed to a debate of general interest, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions (see the principles exposed in paragraph 34 above; see also, inter alia, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 60, 3 November 2015).
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 17676/09

  CICAD c. SUISSE

  Enfin, la Cour observe que, après avoir soigneusement mis en balance les droits concurrents dans la présente affaire (Keller c. Hongrie (déc.), no 33352/02, 4 avril 2006 ; PETA Deutschland, précité, § 47 ; et Bestry c. Pologne, no 57675/10, § 66, 3 novembre 2015), les juridictions nationales ont conclu que W.O. n'avait pas à tolérer l'atteinte à ses droits de la personnalité causée par l'allégation grave formulée par l'association requérante.
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 49969/14

  PINTAR AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  However, not every omission of information will amount to abuse; the information in question must concern the very core of the case (ibid. §§ 33 and 34; and Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 44, 3 November 2015).

 
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 66763/17

  TELEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  Du reste, les allégations de la requérante ne peuvent être considérées comme des éléments essentiels concernant le c?“ur même du grief dont une présentation incomplète ou trompeuse s'analyserait en un abus du droit de requête (voir, Bestry c. Pologne, no 57675/10, § 40, 3 novembre 2015).
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross, cited above, § 28; Bestry v. Poland (dec.), no. 57675/10, 3 November 2015; and Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 19 June 2006).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 61658/19

  SHARIPOV v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the applicant did not abuse his right of individual petition by not informing of his application to the HRC (see Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 44, 3 November 2015; see, by contrast, Gevorgyan and Others v. Armenia (dec.), no. 66535/10, §§ 31-39, 14 January 2020).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 5312/11

  BEG S.P.A. v. ITALY

  As such, they cannot be regarded as "concerning the very core of the case" (see Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 44, 3 November 2015).
• EGMR, 21.04.2020 - 35215/06

  SEVCENCO ET TIMOSIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Par conséquent, la Cour estime qu'elle devait en être informée afin de lui permettre d'examiner l'affaire à la lumière de tous les faits pertinents qui s'y rapportent (comparer avec Buzinger c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 32133/10, §§ 21-22, 16 juin 2015, Lazarov c. Serbie (déc.), no 42571/06, § 26, 3 mai 2016, Safaryan, précité, § 28, et Gevorgyan et autres, précité, § 37 ; et voir, pour des exemples contraires où il a été considéré que les informations ne concernaient pas le c?“ur de l'affaire, Bestry c. Pologne, no 57675/10, § 44, 3 novembre 2015, Mitrovic c. Serbie, no 52142/12, § 34, 21 mars 2017, Shalyavski et autres c. Bulgarie, no 67608/11, § 45, 15 juin 2017, Petrov et X c. Russie, no 23608/16, § 73, 23 octobre 2018, et Pryanishnikov c. Russie, no 25047/05, § 43, 10 septembre 2019).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 57242/13

  BELOSEVIC v. CROATIA

  In order for the Court to reach such a conclusion, the misleading information should concern the very core of the case (see, for example, Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 44, 3 November 2015; Mitrovic v. Serbia, no. 52142/12, §§ 33-34, 21 March 2017; and Shalyavski and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 67608/11, § 45, 15 June 2017).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 17082/13

  BRADATAN c. ROUMANIE

  Or la requérante n'a fourni aucune explication valable pour justifier son omission de mentionner l'existence et l'issue de cette demande (voir, a contrario, Bestry c. Pologne, no 57675/10, §§ 43-44, 3 novembre 2015).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15193/12

  IBRIS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  KONIUSZEWSKI v. POLAND