Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PORUBOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 8237/03
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 54224/00

  CAMPMANY Y DIEZ DE REVENGA and LOPEZ-GALIACHO PERONA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  The instant case is, in the Court's view, distinguishable from those cases in which publication of the photos or articles had the sole purpose of satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of the individual's private life (see Von Hannover, cited above, § 65; Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 45, ECHR 2004-X; Campmany y Diez de Revenga and López Galiacho Perona v. Spain (dec.), no. 54224/00, ECHR 2000-XII; Société Prisma Presse v. France (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  Even the word "homosexual" - which may appear to be the most objectionable term in the article - was employed in a rhetorical question without reference to either Mr V. or Mr K. The Court therefore distinguishes the present case from those in which an applicant's criminal conviction for the use of strong or even obscene language to describe other people's lives led it to find no violation of Article 10 (see, for example, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2001-I, and Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, §§ 70-78, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  In examining the particular circumstances of the case, the Court will take the following elements into account: the position of the applicant, the position of the persons against whom the criticism was directed, the subject matter of the publication, the characterisation of the contested statements by the domestic courts, the wording used by the applicant, and the penalty imposed on her (see, mutadis mutandis, Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 14929/02

  BOU GIBERT et EL HOGAR Y LA MODA S.A. contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  66910/01 and 71612/01, 1 July 2003; and Julio Bou Gibert and El Hogar y La Moda J.A. v. Spain (dec.), no. 14929/02, 13 May 2003).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 66910/01

  SOCIETE PRISMA PRESS contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  66910/01 and 71612/01, 1 July 2003; and Julio Bou Gibert and El Hogar y La Moda J.A. v. Spain (dec.), no. 14929/02, 13 May 2003).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 71612/01

  SOCIETE PRISMA PRESSE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  66910/01 and 71612/01, 1 July 2003; and Julio Bou Gibert and El Hogar y La Moda J.A. v. Spain (dec.), no. 14929/02, 13 May 2003).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  It emphasises that the right of the public to be informed, which is an essential right in a democratic society, can even extend to aspects of the private life of public figures, particularly where politicians are concerned (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 53, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  The instant case is, in the Court's view, distinguishable from those cases in which publication of the photos or articles had the sole purpose of satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of the individual's private life (see Von Hannover, cited above, § 65; Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 45, ECHR 2004-X; Campmany y Diez de Revenga and López Galiacho Perona v. Spain (dec.), no. 54224/00, ECHR 2000-XII; Société Prisma Presse v. France (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03

  Even the word "homosexual" - which may appear to be the most objectionable term in the article - was employed in a rhetorical question without reference to either Mr V. or Mr K. The Court therefore distinguishes the present case from those in which an applicant's criminal conviction for the use of strong or even obscene language to describe other people's lives led it to find no violation of Article 10 (see, for example, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2001-I, and Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, §§ 70-78, ECHR 2000-VIII).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.06.2011 - C-163/10

  Generalanwalt Niilo Jääskinen erläutert die Bedeutung des Begriffs "in Ausübung …

  31 - EGMR, Urteil Porubova gegen Russland vom 8. Oktober 2009, Beschwerde Nr. 8237/03, § 43.