Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BALASKAS v. GREECE
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BALASKAS v. GREECE
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (29)
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 19331/05
KATRAMI c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
Lastly, the nature and severity of the penalty imposed are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference (see Katrami v. Greece, no. 19331/05, § 38, 6 December 2007; Mika, cited above, § 32; and Athanasios Makris, cited above, § 38).In this connection, the Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in a number of cases against Greece owing to the domestic courts" failure to apply standards in conformity with the standards of its case-law concerning freedom of expression when weighed up against one's protection of his or her reputation (see, among other authorities, Katrami v. Greece, no. 19331/05, § 42, 6 December 2007; Vasilakis v. Greece, no. 25145/05, § 56, 17 January 2008; I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. and Karis, cited above, § 35; Kydonis v. Greece, no. 24444/07, § 38, 2 April 2009; Alfantakis v. Greece, no. 49330/07, § 34, 11 February 2010; Mika, cited above, § 41; Koutsoliontos and Pantazis, cited above, § 48; Kapsis and Danikas, cited above, § 42; Athanasios Makris, cited above § 39; and Paraskevopoulos, cited above, § 44).
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
It is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised in domestic proceedings provided that the complaint is raised "at least in substance" (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-I, and Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III).In this connection, it reiterates that Article 10 protects journalists" right to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide "reliable and precise" information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I).
- EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96
CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
The Court has emphasised on many occasions that the imposition of a prison sentence in defamation cases will be compatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence (see Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI, and Paraskevopoulos, cited above, § 42).
- EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96
NIKULA c. FINLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
The Court has also in several cases observed that civil servants must enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation if they are to be successful in performing their tasks and it may therefore prove necessary to protect them from offensive and abusive verbal attacks when on duty (see, in particular Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II and Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 64, 21 December 2004). - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94
JANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
The Court has also in several cases observed that civil servants must enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation if they are to be successful in performing their tasks and it may therefore prove necessary to protect them from offensive and abusive verbal attacks when on duty (see, in particular Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II and Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 64, 21 December 2004). - EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 34438/04
EGELAND AND HANSEID v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
The fairness of the means used to obtain information and reproduce it for the public and the respect shown for the person who is the subject matter of the news report are also essential criteria to be taken into account (see Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway, no. 34438/04, § 61, 16 April 2009). - EGMR - 28473/12 (anhängig)
KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
The Court is mindful of the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention system (see Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, § 175, ECHR 2016). - EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 52137/12
KAPSIS ET DANIKAS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 64184/11
PARASKEVOPOULOS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12
FRISK AND JENSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 73087/17
In that regard, the Court reiterates that while the use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, § 47; and Ziembinski v. Poland (no. 2), no. 1799/07, § 46, 5 July 2016), a criminal conviction is a serious sanction, having regard to the existence of other means of intervention and rebuttal, particularly through civil remedies (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 77, 5 December 2017). - EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 10347/10
MIKA c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05
JOKITAIPALE AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 54608/09
KOUTSOLIONTOS ET PANTAZIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 55135/10
ATHANASIOS MAKRIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 25464/05
GAVRILOVICI v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 1799/07
ZIEMBINSKI CONTRE LA POLOGNE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 31.08.2004 - 66298/01
WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-VERLAGSGES. MBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93
BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
- EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06
A. v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
- EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 53886/00
TOURANCHEAU ET JULY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04
MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10
UNGVÁRY AND IRODALOM KFT. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00
- EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 54968/00
PATUREL c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51000/11
RADOBULJAC CONTRE LA CROATIE
- EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17
EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA
The Court refers to the general principles set out in its case-law for assessing the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 124-27, ECHR 2015; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 158-61, 23 June 2016; and Balaskas v. Greece, no. 73087/17, §§ 37-39, 5 November 2020, with further references). - EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 77940/17
INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY
The Court reiterates that in proceedings such as those in the present case the domestic courts are to consider whether the context of the case, the public interest or the intention of the author of the impugned article justified the possible use of a dose of provocation or exaggeration (see Balaskas v. Greece, no. 73087/17, § 58, 5 November 2020). - EGMR, 21.12.2021 - 66299/10
BANASZCZYK c. POLOGNE
Lorsqu'elle exerce son contrôle, la Cour doit considérer l'ingérence litigieuse à la lumière de l'ensemble de l'affaire, y compris en l'espèce la teneur des remarques reprochées au requérant et le contexte dans lequel celui-ci les a formulées (mutatis mutandis Balaskas c. Grèce, no 73087/17, § 39, 5 novembre 2020).
- EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 60183/17
PRICOPE v. ROMANIA
The Court refers to the general principles set out in its case-law for assessing the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 124-27, ECHR 2015; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 158-61, 23 June 2016; and Balaskas v. Greece, no. 73087/17, §§ 37-39, 5 November 2020, with further references). - EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 42315/15
DROUSIOTIS v. CYPRUS
When called upon to examine the necessity of an interference in a democratic society in the interests of the "protection of the reputation or rights of others", the Court may be required to ascertain whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance when protecting two values guaranteed by the Convention which may come into conflict with each other in certain cases, namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and, on the other, the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8 (see Balaskas v. Greece, no. 73087/17, § 37, 5 November 2020 ). - EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 68373/14
RUSU v. ROMANIA
The Court reiterates the general principles for assessing the necessity of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression in the interest of the "protection of the reputation or rights of others" (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 78-95, 7 February 2012), including in circumstances involving civil servants or teachers in particular (Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006-XIII; Ferihumer v. Austria, no. 30547/03, § 24, 1 February 2007; Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 2), no. 48195/06, § 35, 11 February 2010; Mahi v. Belgium (dec.), no. 57462/19, §§ 30-32, 7 July 2020; and Balaskas v. Greece, no. 73087/17, §§ 36-39, 42, 47-48, 56 and 61, 5 November 2020).