Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ASSOTSIATSIYA NGO GOLOS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ASSOTSIATSIYA NGO GOLOS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  The Court also reiterates that when an NGO draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a "public watchdog" role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and may be characterised as a "social watchdog" warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (ibid.; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 166, 8 November 2016; Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, §§ 87 and 108, 27 June 2017; and GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland, no. 18597/13, §§ 57 and 78-79, 9 January 2018).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  The Court also reiterates that when an NGO draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a "public watchdog" role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and may be characterised as a "social watchdog" warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (ibid.; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 166, 8 November 2016; Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, §§ 87 and 108, 27 June 2017; and GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland, no. 18597/13, §§ 57 and 78-79, 9 January 2018).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  As regards the first applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that there is a possibility under Article 41 of the Convention that a commercial company may be awarded monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR - 28473/12 (anhängig)

  KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  The Court is mindful of its fundamentally subsidiary role in the Convention system (see Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, § 175, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 43351/12

  OOO INFORMATSIONNOYE AGENTSTVO TAMBOV-INFORM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  However, faced with the domestic courts" failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference, the Court finds that they cannot be said to have applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention or to have based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, with further references, OOO Informatsionnoye Agentstvo Tambov-Inform v. Russia, no. 43351/12, § 111, 18 May 2021).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10

  ANTTILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  The Court reached the same conclusion in a case in which the editor-in-chief of a magazine published by a limited-liability company (in which he was one of two shareholders and the chairman of the board) complained that his right to freedom of expression had been violated on account of the Finnish authorities prohibiting the company from processing personal data (see Anttila v. Finland (dec.), no. 16248/10, 19 November 2013; see also Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 30 and 139-40, 27 June 2017).

• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 49588/12

  TESLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, the Court reiterates that States must be accorded some discretion in regulating certain forms of election campaigning with a view to safeguarding the democratic order within their own political systems (see Assotsiatsiya NGO Golos and Others v. Russia, no. 41055/12, § 89, 16 November 2021 and the cases cited therein).

  [1] See, respectively, Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia (no. 42911/08, 21 February 2017); OOO Informatsionnoye Agentstvo Tambov-Inform v. Russia (no. 43351/12, 18 May 2021); and Assotsiatsiya NGO Golos and Others v. Russia (no. 41055/12, 16 November 2021).

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 75231/17

  YURGILEVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020, as to various shortcomings related to police searches at the applicants' premises; Assotsiatsiya NGO Golos and Others v. Russia, no. 41055/12, §§ 76 and 88-89, 16 November 2021, concerning unjustified sanctioning of an NGO for disseminating election-monitoring material on the basis of statutory ban on all election-related publications during pre-election "silence period"; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos.