Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  70 In particular, the Court must determine whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the interference were "relevant and sufficient" and whether the measure taken was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI).

  In its recent Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012), the Court reiterated that the right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 91, ECHR 2004-XI; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010).

• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  In cases such as the present one the national margin of appreciation is circumscribed by the interest of democratic society in enabling the press to exercise its vital role of "public watchdog" in imparting information of serious public concern (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references).

  Whether or not a publication concerns an issue of public concern should depend on a broader assessment of the subject matter and the context of the publication (Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 87, 1 March 2007).

• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  However, as the Court also pointed out in that judgment, in order for Article 8 to come into play, an attack on a person's reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see also A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos.
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  The limits of acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider than in the case of a private individual or an ordinary professional (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 34, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  In cases such as the present one the national margin of appreciation is circumscribed by the interest of democratic society in enabling the press to exercise its vital role of "public watchdog" in imparting information of serious public concern (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  However, in the Court's view it is not clear that these had as their common sting (see Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-IV) a suggestion that Mr A was "in charge of... an international crime organisation".
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99

  VERDENS GANG and AASE v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  The Court discerns no reason for doing so either, finding it sufficiently clear that the sub-heading merely reproduced Mr B's account and opinions (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; compare Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 43380/10

  In its recent Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012), the Court reiterated that the right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 91, ECHR 2004-XI; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

• OLG Düsseldorf, 21.02.2019 - 16 U 179/17

  Unterlassung einer veröffentlichten Wortberichterstattung

  In Übereinstimmung damit hat auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte ausdrücklich festgestellt, dass es nicht Aufgabe der Gerichte ist, anstelle der Presse darüber zu urteilen, wie die Berichterstattung in einem gegebenen Fall zu gestalten ist oder wie die Entscheidung zu treffen ist, welche Informationen in einer Berichterstattung enthalten sein müssen oder nicht (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2014, Axel Springer AG ./. Deutschland Nr. 48311/10, NJW 2015, 1501 - 1505 mit Hinweis auf Urteil vom 10. Juli 2012, Erla Hlynsdottir ./. Island, Nr. 43380/10).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that the limits of acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider than in the case of an ordinary professional (see, mutatis mutandis, Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 68, and Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 65, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA

  The Court considers that by attempting to obtain Z.P.'s and the Ministry's version of events and by publishing the response of the Special Prosecutor's Office, the applicant company must be considered to have sought to achieve a balance in its reporting (compare Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 70 in limine, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 52737/18

  ÓMARSSON v. ICELAND

  In that context, the Court has furthermore found that it is not necessarily incumbent upon a journalist to ascertain the truth of disputed allegations, provided that the journalist acts in good faith and with sufficient diligence (see Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 72, 10 July 2012).