Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REZNIK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Reznik v. Russia

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2014, 1163

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

  GUNDUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05

  As he was given the floor after the applicant (see paragraph 14 above), he could have dispelled any allegation which he considered to be untrue and presented his own version of the incident, which however he chose not to do (compare Filatenko v. Russia, no. 73219/01, § 41, 6 December 2007, and Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 73219/01

  FILATENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05

  As he was given the floor after the applicant (see paragraph 14 above), he could have dispelled any allegation which he considered to be untrue and presented his own version of the incident, which however he chose not to do (compare Filatenko v. Russia, no. 73219/01, § 41, 6 December 2007, and Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05

  However, as the Court has repeatedly emphasised, lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression too and they have the right to comment in public on the administration of justice provided that their criticism does not overstep certain bounds (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 173-174, ECHR 2005-XIII; Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-III; and Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-II, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05

  The test of necessity requires the Court to determine whether the interference corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05

  As regards the sanction imposed on the applicant, the Court recalls the "chilling effect" that the fear of sanction has on the exercise of freedom of expression (see, among many others, Nikula, cited above, § 54, and CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 114, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18

  MESIC v. CROATIA

  It thus follows that, contrary to the Government's argument (see paragraph 59 above), the civil courts failed to carry out the required balancing exercise between Mr Jurasinovic's reputation and the applicant's freedom of expression (compare Perinçek, cited above, § 278; Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 43, 4 April 2013; and Milisavljevic v. Serbia, no. 50123/06, § 38, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 2840/10

  OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA

  In its judgments against Russia adopted subsequently to that in the case of Romanenko and Others, in the absence of a dispute between the parties regarding the existence of a legitimate aim, the Court, when examining complaints under Article 10 stemming from the defamation proceedings brought by a remand prison and its two officers (see Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 41, 4 April 2013), by a university (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 25, 8 October 2015), by the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office of Russia (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina, cited above, § 62), by the electoral commission and the body of the executive of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation as well as a regional branch of the United Russia party (see Ostanina v. Russia, no. 22169/11, § 19, 17 April 2018), or by the body of the executive of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (see Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019, and Kommersant and Others v. Russia, nos. 37482/10 and 37486/10, 23 June 2020), focused on the assessment of proportionality of an interference.
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 9406/05

  KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA

  There must be something in the circumstances of a particular case to make the ordinary reader feel that the statement reflected directly on the individual claimant, or that he was targeted by the criticism (see Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR - 28873/15 (anhängig)

  OOO TELEKANAL DOZHD v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference "prescribed by law" and was that law sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? What was the objective link between the question of the poll and the plaintiffs (compare Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013)?.
• EGMR - 32058/13 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10? (see, among others, Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013, and OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, §§ 71, 74 et passim, 22 January 2013)?.