Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANOMA UITGEVERS B.V. c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANOMA UITGEVERS B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANOMA UITGEVERS B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Art. 10

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)

  Art. 10 MRK
  Sanoma Uitgevers: Große Kammer stärkt Schutz journalistischer Quellen (und dreht Kammer-Urteil einstimmig um)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands

  [06.01.2010]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 38224/03
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

Papierfundstellen

• NJW-RR 2011, 1266

Wird zitiert von ... (39)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 40485/02

  NORDISK FILM & TV A/S c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  However, in Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII the Court held that the decision of the Danish Supreme Court to compel the applicant company to hand over unedited footage constituted an interference within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention despite the finding that the affected persons were not to be considered "anonymous sources of information" within the meaning of the case-law of the Court (paragraphs 59 and 61 above).

  It should be open to the judge or other authority to refuse to make a disclosure order or to make a limited or qualified order so as to protect sources from being revealed, whether or not they are specifically named in the withheld material, on the grounds that the communication of such material creates a serious risk of compromising the identity of journalist's sources (see, for example, Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, cited above).

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216) The right of journalists to protect their sources is part of the freedom to "receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities" protected by Article 10 of the Convention and serves as one of its important safeguards.

  News is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest (see, for example, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216; Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, § 51; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see, among many other authorities, the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 49; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 37, Series A no. 316-B; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  News is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest (see, for example, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216; Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, § 51; and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see, among many other authorities, the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 49; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 37, Series A no. 316-B; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see, among many other authorities, the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 49; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 37, Series A no. 316-B; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  The arrangements they made to cover their financial obligations to their representatives are not material for the purposes of Article 41. The situation in the present case is distinguishable from that in which liability for legal costs is borne by a third party (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (former Article 50), 24 February 1983, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 59).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 74336/01

  Rechtswidrige Durchsuchung einer Anwaltskanzlei zur Erlangung elektronisch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  In situations of urgency, a procedure should exist to identify and isolate, prior to the exploitation of the material by the authorities, information that could lead to the identification of sources from information that carries no such risk (see, mutatis mutandis, Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 62-66, ECHR 2007-XI).
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 18954/91

  ZANA ET 8 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  This danger, it should be observed, is not limited to publications or periodicals that deal with issues of current affairs (cf. Alınak v. Turkey, no. 40287/98, § 37, 29 March 2005).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98

  Kovacic u. a. ./. Slowenien
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 71463/01

  SILIH v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

  ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 51772/99

  ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.07.2016 - C-203/15

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe kann eine generelle …

  37 - Vgl. insbesondere EGMR vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, § 83).

  38 - Vgl. insbesondere EGMR vom 26. März 1987, Leander/Schweden (CE:ECHR:1987:0326JUD000924881, §§ 50 und 51), EGMR vom 26. Oktober 2000, Hassan und Tchaouch/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2000:1026JUD003098596, § 84), EGMR vom 4. Dezember 2008, S. und Marper/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2008:1204JUD003056204, § 95), EGMR vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, §§ 81 bis 83), EGMR vom 31. März 2016, Stoyanov u. a./Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2016:0331JUD005538810, §§ 124 bis 126).

  43 - Vgl. insbesondere EGMR vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, § 83): "[Der Begriff "Gesetz" in den Art. 8 bis 11 EMRK umfasst] zugleich das "geschriebene Recht", das sowohl die Vorschriften unterhalb Gesetzesrang als auch die Rechtsakte einschließt, die eine berufsständische Vereinigung kraft Ermächtigung des Gesetzgebers im Rahmen ihrer autonomen Rechtsetzungsbefugnis erlässt, und das "ungeschriebene Recht".

• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Apart from the above factors, the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded are factors which in some circumstances may have to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression (see Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 61, ECHR 2001 VIII; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005 II; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 171 and 181, ECHR 2005 XIII; Saygili and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 83, 26 February 2009; Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, § 46, 20 October 2009; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 100, 14 September 2010; Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013; and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 155, 23 April 2015).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.04.2011 - C-70/10

  Rechtsangleichung

  87 - Vgl. u. a. EGMR, Urteil Sanoma Uitgevers gegen Niederlande vom 14. September 2010, Beschwerde Nr. 38224/03, §§ 81, 82.

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09

  Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010; and Güler and Ugur v. Turkey, nos.

  In order for the individual to be able to foresee the consequences of his or her conduct, the Court has held that "it would be contrary to the rule of law for the legal discretion granted to the executive to be expressed in terms of an unfettered power" (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, § 68, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82; see also, in the more recent case-law of the Grand Chamber, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010, and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 230, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06

  TELEGRAAF MEDIA NEDERLAND LANDELIJKE MEDIA B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, that is not decisive (see Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 66, 14 September 2010).

  Closer to the facts of the present case, the Court has consistently accepted, in a phrase repeated many times since its first use in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, that an order leading to the disclosure of a journalistic source may be compatible with Article 10 if - but only if - it is justified by an "overriding requirement in the public interest" (see Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 91, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 51, 14 September 2010.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.09.2021 - C-302/20

  Autorité des marchés financiers - Vorabentscheidungsverfahren - Binnenmarkt für …

  73 Vgl. dazu etwa EGMR, Urteile vom 22. November 2007, Voskuil/Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2007:1122JUD006475201, § 65), vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B. V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, § 59), und vom 25. Oktober 2011, Altug Taner Akçam/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2011:1025JUD002752007, § 75).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 19920/13

  CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that for a law to pass the "prescribed by law" test in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, it must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate his conduct accordingly (see, for instance, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 81, 14 September 2010, and Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others, cited above, § 57).

  In these circumstances, the Court need not ascertain whether the other requirements of the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Convention were complied with in the instant case - namely, whether the interference pursued one of the legitimate aims stated in that paragraph and whether it was necessary in a democratic society in pursuance of such an aim (see Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 101, 14 September 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 42, ECHR 1999-VIII).

• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05

  DILIPAK c. TURQUIE

  Cette expression implique donc notamment que la législation interne doit user de termes assez clairs pour indiquer à tous de manière suffisante en quelles circonstances et sous quelles conditions elle habilite la puissance publique à recourir à des mesures affectant leurs droits protégés par la Convention (voir, par exemple, Gorzelik et autres c. Pologne [GC], no 44158/98, § 64, CEDH 2004-I, Maestri c. Italie [GC], no 39748/98, § 30, CEDH 2004-I, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 38224/03, § 81, 14 septembre 2010, Bayatyan c. Arménie [GC], no 23459/03, § 113, CEDH 2011, et Fernández Martínez c. Espagne [GC], no 56030/07, § 117, CEDH 2014 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 69436/10

  BRITO FERRINHO BEXIGA VILLA-NOVA c. PORTUGAL

  Cette expression implique donc notamment que la législation interne doit user de termes assez clairs pour indiquer à tous de manière suffisante en quelles circonstances et sous quelles conditions elle habilite la puissance publique à recourir à des mesures affectant leurs droits protégés par la Convention (voir, par exemple, Gorzelik et autres c. Pologne [GC], no 44158/98, § 64, CEDH 2004-I, Maestri c. Italie [GC], no 39748/98, § 30, CEDH 2004-I, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 38224/03, § 81, 14 septembre 2010, Bayatyan c. Arménie [GC], no 23459/03, § 113, CEDH 2011, et Fernández Martínez c. Espagne [GC], no 56030/07, § 117, CEDH 2014 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 3453/12

  KAPETANIOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  En outre, quant au deuxième requérant, la Cour juge établi qu'il a réellement exposé des frais, quant à la procédure devant les juridictions internes et devant elle, dès lors qu'en sa qualité de client il a contracté l'obligation juridique de payer ses représentants en justice sur une base convenue (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas, no 38224/03, § 110, 31 mars 2009, et Vallianatos et autres c. Grèce [GC], nos 29381/09 et 32684/09, § 103, CEDH 2013 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 33847/11

  TELEGRAAF MEDIA NEDERLAND LANDELIJKE MEDIA B.V. AND VAN DER GRAAF v. THE …
• EGMR, 06.11.2017 - 43494/09

  GARIB c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 49085/07

  GÖRMÜS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 36443/06

  LÜTFIYE ZENGIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 31827/02

  LADUNA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 33441/10

  C.D. ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 15894/09

  TZAMALIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 26418/11

  HERMAN ET SERAZADISHVILI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 11463/09

  SAMARAS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  POROWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 21381/11

  DUONG c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 36673/13

  NIAZAI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 36546/10

  NIKOLAOS ATHANASIOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 28.06.2012 - 15054/07

  RESSIOT ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 52028/13

  MASLÁK ET MICHÁLKOVÁ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 26452/11

  TATISHVILI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 30002/08

  Martin ./. Frankreich
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 26419/10

  SAINT-PAUL LUXEMBOURG S.A. c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 11677/11

  NIECIECKI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 76951/12

  CHAZARYAN ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 31706/10

  GÜLER ET UGUR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  IVASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

  BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 12261/06

  AYDOGAN ET DARA RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYINCILIK ANONIM SIRKETI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06

  CHOLAKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37326/13

  UNIFAUN THEATRE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 740/13

  LOGOTHETIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE