Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COJOCARU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Cojocaru v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  COJOCARU v. ROMANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  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 relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-IV).

• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  It reiterates that from the standpoint of Article 10, the main difference between statements of fact and value judgments lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  Furthermore, while it does not deny that some of the statements in the article were provocative, the Court notes that the language used was not particularly excessive (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI).

 
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-07 and 109-13, ECHR 2012; and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 85-88 and 89-95, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see, notably, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and, more recently, Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  In addition, the Court is mindful of the fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 23605/09

  Zu den Grenzen des Spekulationsjournalismus

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  Not only do the media have the task of imparting such information and ideas, but the public also has a right to receive them (see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 93; and Salumäki v. Finland, no. 23605/09, § 46, 29 April 2014 with further references).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 28999/03

  TIMCIUC v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  The relevant provisions of the Civil and Criminal Codes concerning insult and defamation and liability for paying damages, in force at the material time, as well as the subsequent amendments to them, are described in CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania ([GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2004-XI) and Timciuc v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28999/03, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 22824/04

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 6)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  They relied on Flux v. Moldova (no. 6) (no. 22824/04, 29 July 2008) and Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000-VIII).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

  Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  Vgl. auch EGMR, 10. Februar 2015, Cojocaru/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD003210406, § 33).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 59347/11

  MAGOSSO ET BRINDANI c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà jugé que le degré de précision requis pour établir le bien-fondé d'une accusation en matière pénale par un tribunal est difficilement comparable à celui qu'un journaliste devrait observer lorsqu'il s'exprime sur un sujet d'intérêt public (Cojocaru c. Roumanie, no 32104/06, § 29, 10 février 2015).