Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAHTONEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 10 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lehofer.at (Kurzinformation)

  Identifizierende Berichterstattung, diesmal: Täter

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Lahtonen v. Finland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are a question of practice (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30 and, mutatis mutandis, Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 40, Series A no. 260-A).

  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, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  The need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  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, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  However, it is only in exceptional circumstances that such sanctions can be justified (see Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69, 12 October 2010; and Yleisradio Oy and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 30881/09, 8 February 2011; as regards defamation and insult, see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-IV; and Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25711/04

  TUOMELA AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  The Court thus found, in one case, that the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance" (see Tammer, cited above, § 68) and went on to hold that there had not been a violation of Article 10. In another case, however, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the subject in question was a news item of "major public concern" and that the published photographs "did not disclose any details of [the] private life" of the person in question (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, cited above, § 37) and held that there had been a violation of Article 10. In a group of Finnish cases the Court found that a private person could, by her behaviour, be taken to have entered the public domain and that the disclosure of her identity in a newspaper report had a direct bearing on matters of public interest (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, cited above, §§ 83 and 85; Tuomela and Others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, §§ 56 and 58, 6 April 2010; Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, §§ 71 and 73, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, §§ 68 and 70, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland, no. 6372/06, §§ 60 and 62, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 43349/05

  JOKITAIPALE AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  The Court thus found, in one case, that the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance" (see Tammer, cited above, § 68) and went on to hold that there had not been a violation of Article 10. In another case, however, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the subject in question was a news item of "major public concern" and that the published photographs "did not disclose any details of [the] private life" of the person in question (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, cited above, § 37) and held that there had been a violation of Article 10. In a group of Finnish cases the Court found that a private person could, by her behaviour, be taken to have entered the public domain and that the disclosure of her identity in a newspaper report had a direct bearing on matters of public interest (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, cited above, §§ 83 and 85; Tuomela and Others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, §§ 56 and 58, 6 April 2010; Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, §§ 71 and 73, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, §§ 68 and 70, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland, no. 6372/06, §§ 60 and 62, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6372/06

  ILTALEHTI AND KARHUVAARA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  The Court thus found, in one case, that the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance" (see Tammer, cited above, § 68) and went on to hold that there had not been a violation of Article 10. In another case, however, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the subject in question was a news item of "major public concern" and that the published photographs "did not disclose any details of [the] private life" of the person in question (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, cited above, § 37) and held that there had been a violation of Article 10. In a group of Finnish cases the Court found that a private person could, by her behaviour, be taken to have entered the public domain and that the disclosure of her identity in a newspaper report had a direct bearing on matters of public interest (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, cited above, §§ 83 and 85; Tuomela and Others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, §§ 56 and 58, 6 April 2010; Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, §§ 71 and 73, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, §§ 68 and 70, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland, no. 6372/06, §§ 60 and 62, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 6806/06

  SOILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  The Court thus found, in one case, that the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance" (see Tammer, cited above, § 68) and went on to hold that there had not been a violation of Article 10. In another case, however, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the subject in question was a news item of "major public concern" and that the published photographs "did not disclose any details of [the] private life" of the person in question (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, cited above, § 37) and held that there had been a violation of Article 10. In a group of Finnish cases the Court found that a private person could, by her behaviour, be taken to have entered the public domain and that the disclosure of her identity in a newspaper report had a direct bearing on matters of public interest (see Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, cited above, §§ 83 and 85; Tuomela and Others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, §§ 56 and 58, 6 April 2010; Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, §§ 71 and 73, 6 April 2010; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, §§ 68 and 70, 6 April 2010; and Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland, no. 6372/06, §§ 60 and 62, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  SAARISTO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29576/09

  However, it is only in exceptional circumstances that such sanctions can be justified (see Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69, 12 October 2010; and Yleisradio Oy and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 30881/09, 8 February 2011; as regards defamation and insult, see CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 30881/09

  YLEISRADIO OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48009/08

  Keine Pflicht zur Vorabbenachrichtigung bei Veröffentlichung privater …
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 10781/10

  MISICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In Lahtonen v. Finland, no. 29576/09, § 66, 17 January 2012, it reiterated that the limits of permissible criticism in the context of defamation complaints were wider as regards a politician than as regards a private individual (see also Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103; and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 59, 12 October 2010).