Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARINOVA v. BULGARIA and 3 other applications

  Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 43587/09

  LOPUCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  Moreover, the aim sought to be achieved by the applicants" convictions was not the maintenance of the authority of the judiciary, which may supply greater justification for such measures, but the reputation of the public officials concerned (contrast Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; Skalka, cited above, §§ 40-41; Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, §§ 33 and 35, 30 March 2006; Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 38, 8 April 2010; and Lopuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, §§ 61 and 63, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 10941/03

  BEZYMYANNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  Moreover, the aim sought to be achieved by the applicants" convictions was not the maintenance of the authority of the judiciary, which may supply greater justification for such measures, but the reputation of the public officials concerned (contrast Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; Skalka, cited above, §§ 40-41; Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, §§ 33 and 35, 30 March 2006; Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 38, 8 April 2010; and Lopuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, §§ 61 and 63, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 32458/96

  SADAY AGAINST TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  Moreover, the aim sought to be achieved by the applicants" convictions was not the maintenance of the authority of the judiciary, which may supply greater justification for such measures, but the reputation of the public officials concerned (contrast Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; Skalka, cited above, §§ 40-41; Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, §§ 33 and 35, 30 March 2006; Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 38, 8 April 2010; and Lopuch v. Poland, no. 43587/09, §§ 61 and 63, 24 July 2012).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  MARIAPORI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  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, 24.01.2008 - 17155/03

  COUTANT v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  Also, the applicants" statements were not made publicly (see Bezymyannyy, § 39, Siryk, § 45, and Marin Kostov, § 46, all cited above), for instance verbally in front of members of the public (contrast Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I), or in letters addressed or made available to the media (contrast Coutant v. France (dec.), no. 17155/03, 24 January 2008, and Morice, cited above, § 140).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  They are therefore - in principle - entitled to the repayment of the sums that they paid in fines, damages and costs as a result of the judgments against them (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 75 and 77, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  When it comes to the fairness of criminal proceedings, the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention, being less strict than those of Article 6, are absorbed by them (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 110, Series A no. 168, and C.G. v. the United Kingdom, no. 43373/98, § 53, 19 December 2001).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 29222/11

  FUCHS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  It should further be noted in this context that the applicants were not military servicemen, civil servants, journalists or lawyers, who have special "duties and responsibilities" in the exercise of their right to freedom of expression in their respective professional contexts (see Grigoriades v. Greece, 25 November 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, as regards military servicemen; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323; Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2008; and Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 85, 26 February 2009, as regards civil servants; Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 90, ECHR 2015, as regards journalists; and Fuchs v. Germany (dec.), no. 29222/11, § 39, 27 January 2015, and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 132-39, 23 April 2015, as regards lawyers).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10

  Zur Meinungsfreiheit in Ungarn

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  The Court's case-law draws a clear distinction between criticism and insult in terms of whether sanctions may be justified for such statements (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 20, 19 July 2011; and Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  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, 28.10.2003 - 39657/98

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten (Bedeutung der Rechtsanwälte für das …
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 20755/08

  AZADLIQ AND ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  It therefore rejects their claim in respect of pecuniary damage (compare, for example, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, § 120-21, 12 July 2016; Pal v. the United Kingdom, no. 44261/19, § 69, 30 November 2021; and Freitas Rangel, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  YEGER v. TURKEY

  The Court also dismisses the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary damage in so far as they concern item (ii) owing to his failure to submit any document showing that he had paid the payment order and item, (iii) as no causal link could be established between the health problems the applicant had encountered long after his release and the violations found in the present case (see Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, § 119, 12 July 2016, and compare Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland, no. 12951/18, § 81, 31 August 2021).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

  33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, § 119, 12 July 2016).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 23562/13

  TULUS c. ROUMANIE

  Ils n'étaient dès lors pas porteurs d'un message politique ou « militant'(voir, a contrario, Mamère c. France, no 12697/03, § 20, CEDH 2006-XIII) et ils ne visaient pas les éventuels agissements irréguliers d'un fonctionnaire (voir, a contrario, Marinova et autres c. Bulgarie, nos33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 et 61863/11, §§ 86 à 90, 12 juillet 2016).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court must look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole, including the status of the applicant and that of the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings, the content of the critical comments held against the applicant, as well as the context and the manner in which they were made public (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II; Siredzhuk, cited above, § 81; and, mutatis mutandis, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, § 86, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 18288/06

  BOYKANOV c. BULGARIE

  Dans un certain nombre d'affaires concernant des plaintes critiquant le travail de fonctionnaires, adressées à d'autres organes publics, et qui ont été sanctionnées par la suite par des condamnations pour diffamation, la Cour a estimé que la protection offerte par l'article 10 devait être analysée non pas au regard de la liberté de la presse ou de la discussion publique de questions d'intérêt général, mais par rapport au droit du requérant de se plaindre des agissements irréguliers d'un fonctionnaire devant l'organe compétent pour examiner de telles doléances (voir notamment Zakharov c. Russie, no 14881/03, § 23, 5 octobre 2006 ; Kazakov c. Russie, no 1758/02, § 26, 18 décembre 2008 ; Bezymyannyy c. Russie, no 10941/03, § 41, 8 avril 2010 ; Siryk c. Ukraine, no 6428/07, § 42, 31 mars 2011 ; Marinova et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 et 61863/11, §§ 86-90, 12 juillet 2016).
• EGMR - 37693/20 (anhängig)

  SIDEREVA v. BULGARIA

  33502/07 and 3 others, §§ 79-95, 12 July 2016)? In particular, could that interference be regarded as proportionate in the light of the factors set out in paragraph 86 of Marinova and Others (cited above)?.
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 79709/13

  YORDANOV v. BULGARIA

  It is hence superfluous to assess whether the words which the applicant used to describe his former employers/business partners were in any event excessive by reason of being unduly derogatory (see, mutatis mutandis, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, § 88, 12 July 2016).