Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAARISTO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)

  Eingeschränktes Privatleben einer politischen Öffentlichkeitsarbeiterin

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  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), cited above § 62, Series A no. 30; Lingens, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski, 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, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  However, it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the same extent as politicians and should therefore be treated on an equal footing with the latter when it comes to the criticism of their actions (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  In this connection, the Court points out that the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence will be compatible with journalists' freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been 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).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  The Court would observe in this connection that in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  The Court would observe in this connection that in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II and Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 68, 14 February 2008).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 45130/06

  RUOKANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  Nevertheless, when a statement, whether qualified as defamatory or insulting by the domestic authorities, is made in the context of a public debate, the bringing of criminal proceedings by a public prosecutor (like in other Finnish cases, see for example Niskasaari and Others v. Finland, no. 37520/07, § 77, 6 July 2010 and Ruokanen and Others v. Finland, no. 45130/06, § 50, 6 April 2010) against the maker of the statement entails the risk that a prison sentence might be imposed.
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07

  NISKASAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  Nevertheless, when a statement, whether qualified as defamatory or insulting by the domestic authorities, is made in the context of a public debate, the bringing of criminal proceedings by a public prosecutor (like in other Finnish cases, see for example Niskasaari and Others v. Finland, no. 37520/07, § 77, 6 July 2010 and Ruokanen and Others v. Finland, no. 45130/06, § 50, 6 April 2010) against the maker of the statement entails the risk that a prison sentence might be imposed.
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and they must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 42; Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  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), cited above § 62, Series A no. 30; Lingens, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski, cited above, § 30; and News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  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), cited above § 62, Series A no. 30; Lingens, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski, cited above, § 30; and News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

  FLINKKILÄ AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 60798/10

  Namen der Sedlmayr-Mörder bleiben im Netz

  Dieser Begriff umfasst die personenbezogenen Informationen, von denen eine Person berechtigterweise erwarten kann, dass sie nicht ohne ihr Einverständnis veröffentlicht werden (Flinkkilä und andere./. Finnland, Nr. 25576/04, Rdnr. 75, 6. April 2010; Saaristo und andere./. Finnland, Nr. 184/06, Rdnr. 61, 12.
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

  Er umfasst persönliche Informationen, von denen eine Person berechtigterweise erwarten kann, dass sie nicht ohne ihr Einverständnis veröffentlicht werden (Flinkkilä und andere, a.a.O., Rdnr. 75, und Saaristo und andere ./. Finnland, Nr. 184/06, Rdnr. 61, 12. Oktober 2010).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53495/09

  Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung

  Dieser Begriff umfasst persönliche Informationen, von denen eine Person berechtigterweise erwarten kann, dass sie nicht ohne ihr Einverständnis veröffentlicht werden (F. und andere./. Finnland, Nr. 25576/04, Rdnr. 75, 6. April 2010; S. und andere./. Finnland, Nr. 184/06, Rdnr. 61, 12.

 
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53649/09

  Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung

  Dieser Begriff umfasst persönliche Informationen, von denen eine Person berechtigterweise erwarten kann, dass sie nicht ohne ihr Einverständnis veröffentlicht werden (Flinkkilä und andere, Nr. 25576/04, Rdnr. 75, 6. April 2010; Saaristo und andere./. Finnland, Nr. 184/06, Rdnr. 61, 12.
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 10764/09

  Keine Bedenken gegen Dashcam-Videos vor Gericht?

  Cette notion comprend les informations personnelles dont un individu peut légitimement attendre qu'elles ne soient pas publiées sans son consentement (Flinkkilä et autres c. Finlande, no 25576/04, § 75, 6 avril 2010, Saaristo et autres c. Finlande, no 184/06, § 61, 12 octobre 2010).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 56925/08

  BÉDAT c. SUISSE

  It covers personal information which individuals can legitimately expect should not be published without their consent (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 75, 6 April 2010, and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 61, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 25527/13

  VICENT DEL CAMPO v. SPAIN

  It covers personal information which individuals can legitimately expect should not be published without their consent (see Axel Springer AG [GC], cited above, § 83; Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 61, 12 October 2010; and Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 75, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 40454/07

  COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIÉS v. FRANCE

  It covers personal information which individuals can legitimately expect should not be published without their consent (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 75, 6 April 2010, and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 61, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  The Court has already found that the States cannot be regarded as having overstepped that margin because they resorted to criminal measures as a response to defamation (see Radio France and Others, cited above, § 40; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-XI; Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009; and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69 in limine, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 22998/13

  Y c. SUISSE

  Elle comprend des informations personnelles dont un individu peut légitimement attendre qu'elles ne soient pas publiées sans son consentement (Flinkkilä et autres c. Finlande, no 25576/04, § 75, 6 avril 2010, et Saaristo et autres c. Finlande, no 184/06, § 61, 12 octobre 2010).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  LAHTONEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 37873/04

  KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  BOZHKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 50469/14

  MARINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 36705/16

  MARGARI v. GREECE
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  SABANOVIC v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 10781/10

  MISICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 27516/14

  M.P. c. PORTUGAL