Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZÖLDI v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZÖLDI v. HUNGARY

  Art. 11, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  The relevant international material on access to official documents and protection of personal data is outlined in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary ([GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 36-43 and 50-63, 8 November 2016).

  In the latter cases, the Court adopted the approach taken in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary ([GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 71 and 117, 8 November 2016), according to which the question of whether the situation of which an applicant complains falls within the scope of Article 10 is to a large extent linked to the merits of his or her complaint, and examined it under the merits (see Studio Monitori and Others, cited above, § 32, and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law, cited above, § 55).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  In the former cases, the Court followed the general principles outlined in Denisov v. Ukraine ([GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018), according to which the question of the applicability of a Convention provision is an issue falling under the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae and that the relevant analysis should be carried out at the admissibility stage, unless there is a particular reason to join this question to the merits (see, in relation to the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention, Denisov, cited above, § 93, and, in relation to the applicability of Article 10 of the Convention, Seks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 35, 3 February 2022, and Namazli v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 28203/10, § 30, 7 June 2022).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  According to the Court's well-established principles in this regard, any restriction to freedom of expression "must be established convincingly" (see among other authorities, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013; Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 131, ECHR 2015; and Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, cited above, § 187) and must correspond to a "pressing social need".

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 6091/16

  Auskunftsausspruch: Namen von Stasi-Richtern müssen nicht offengelegt werden

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  Weighing these aspects, the Court is satisfied that the applicant wished to exercise her right to impart information on a matter of public interest and sought access to information to that end under Article 10 of the Convention (see Yuriy Chumak v. Ukraine, no. 23897/10, § 33, 18 March 2021; Seks, cited above, § 43; and Saure v. Germany (no. 2), no. 6091/16, § 39, 28 March 2023).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  The Court, in determining whether Article 8 is engaged with regard to certain personal information, has due regard to the specific context (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, cited above, § 193; and L.B. v. Hungary, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 44920/09

  Studio Monitori et.al. gegen Georgien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  Compatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention 29. While the Government have not raised an objection concerning the applicability of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is necessary to address this issue of its own motion (see Studio Monitori and Others v. Georgia, nos. 44920/09 and 8942/10, § 32, 30 January 2020, and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine, no. 10090/16, § 55, 26 March 2020).
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 10090/16

  CENTRE FOR DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  Compatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention 29. While the Government have not raised an objection concerning the applicability of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is necessary to address this issue of its own motion (see Studio Monitori and Others v. Georgia, nos. 44920/09 and 8942/10, § 32, 30 January 2020, and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine, no. 10090/16, § 55, 26 March 2020).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 6106/16

  SAURE v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  18865/11 and 51865/11, § 49, 19 January 2021; and Saure v. Germany (dec.), no. 6106/16, § 35, 19 October 2021).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  SEKS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  In the former cases, the Court followed the general principles outlined in Denisov v. Ukraine ([GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018), according to which the question of the applicability of a Convention provision is an issue falling under the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae and that the relevant analysis should be carried out at the admissibility stage, unless there is a particular reason to join this question to the merits (see, in relation to the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention, Denisov, cited above, § 93, and, in relation to the applicability of Article 10 of the Convention, Seks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 35, 3 February 2022, and Namazli v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 28203/10, § 30, 7 June 2022).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 28203/10

  NAMAZLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 49049/18

  In the former cases, the Court followed the general principles outlined in Denisov v. Ukraine ([GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018), according to which the question of the applicability of a Convention provision is an issue falling under the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae and that the relevant analysis should be carried out at the admissibility stage, unless there is a particular reason to join this question to the merits (see, in relation to the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention, Denisov, cited above, § 93, and, in relation to the applicability of Article 10 of the Convention, Seks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 35, 3 February 2022, and Namazli v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 28203/10, § 30, 7 June 2022).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 18865/11

  MIKIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 23897/10

  YURIY CHUMAK v. UKRAINE