Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARIAPORI v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23927/94

  SÜREK AND ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  Although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the Court considers that the imposition of a prison sentence for a defamation offence will be compatible with an applicant's right to 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 CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; and mutatis mutandis, Feridun Yazar v. Turkey, no. 42713/98, § 27, 23 September 2004; and Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 63, 8 July 1999).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  The need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were "relevant and sufficient" (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski v. Poland, cited above, § 30; and News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  It was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004, Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  It was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004, Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 56767/00

  SELISTO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  It was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004, Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  Although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the Court considers that the imposition of a prison sentence for a defamation offence will be compatible with an applicant's right to 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 CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; and mutatis mutandis, Feridun Yazar v. Turkey, no. 42713/98, § 27, 23 September 2004; and Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 63, 8 July 1999).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  EERIKAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  It was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004, Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X, and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

• EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  However, it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent to which politicians do and should therefore be treated on an equal footing with the latter when it comes to the criticism of their actions (see, mutatis mutandis, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; see also Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II, and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 56, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 10644/08

  MIKHAYLOVA v. UKRAINE

  Parties" freedom of expression in the courtroom is not unlimited and certain interests, such as the authority of the judiciary, are important enough to justify restrictions on this right (see Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 62, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 35365/12

  SHAHANOV AND PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  Moreover, the limits of acceptable criticism with regard to public officials may in some circumstances be wider than in relation to private individuals (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-II; Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI; and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 56, 6 July 2010).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 51000/11

  RADOBULJAC v. CROATIA

  Furthermore, freedom of expression is also applicable to lawyers and protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, for example, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 134, 23 April 2015; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 174, ECHR 2005-XIII; Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 62, 6 July 2010; and Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 28, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 37840/10

  AMORIM GIESTAS ET JESUS COSTA BORDALO c. PORTUGAL

  En particulier, la Cour a déjà considéré à plusieurs reprises qu'une peine de prison infligée dans des cas de diffamation n'est compatible avec la liberté d'expression garantie par l'article 10 que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, notamment lorsque d'autres droits fondamentaux ont été gravement atteints, comme dans l'hypothèse, par exemple, de la diffusion d'un discours de haine ou d'incitation à la violence (Mariapori c. Finlande, no 37751/07, § 67, 6 juillet 2010 ; CumpÇ?nÇ? et MazÇ?re c. Roumanie, précité, § 115, et mutatis mutandis, Feridun Yazar c. Turquie, no 42713/98, § 27, 23 septembre 2004, et Sürek et Özdemir c. Turquie [GC], no 23927/94 et 24277/94, § 63, 8 juillet 1999).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 10347/10

  MIKA c. GRÈCE

  Enfin, la Cour a déjà considéré à plusieurs reprises qu'une peine de prison infligée dans des cas de diffamation n'est compatible avec la liberté d'expression garantie par l'article 10 que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, notamment lorsque d'autres droits fondamentaux ont été gravement atteints, comme dans l'hypothèse, par exemple, de la diffusion d'un discours de haine ou d'incitation à la violence (Mariapori c. Finlande, no 37751/07, § 67, 6 juillet 2010 ; CumpÇŽnÇŽ et MazÇŽre c. Roumanie [GC], no 33348/96, § 115, CEDH 2004-XI, et mutatis mutandis, Feridun Yazar c. Turquie, no 42713/98, § 27, 23 septembre 2004, et Sürek et Özdemir c. Turquie [GC], no 23927/94 et 24277/94, § 63, 8 juillet 1999).
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 68317/13

  MILJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Thus in this context it is only in exceptional circumstances that restriction - even by way of a lenient criminal penalty - of the freedom of expression can be accepted as necessary in a democratic society (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 174, ECHR 2005-XIII; see also Nikula, cited above, §§ 49 and 55, and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 62, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  MARINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Moreover, the limits of acceptable criticism with regard to public officials may in some circumstances be wider than in relation to private individuals (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-II; Steur v. the Netherlands, no. 39657/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI; and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 56, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  KINCSES v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, freedom of expression protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, for example, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 174, ECHR 2005-XIII; and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 62, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 59347/11

  MAGOSSO ET BRINDANI c. ITALIE

  Or la Cour rappelle que, si l'on ne saurait dire que les fonctionnaires s'exposent sciemment à un contrôle attentif de leurs faits à l'instar des hommes politiques (Busuioc c. Moldova, no 61513/00, § 60, 21 décembre 2004, Mamère c. France, no 12697/03, § 27, CEDH 2006-XIII), les limites de la critique à l'égard des fonctionnaires agissant en qualité de personnages publics dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions officielles sont plus larges que pour les simples particuliers (voir, parmi d'autres, Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko et autres c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], no 17224/11, § 98, 27 juin 2017, Mariapori c. Finlande, no 37751/07, § 56, 6 juillet 2010).