Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+10, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information Freedom to receive information) Violation of Article 13+10 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Violation of Article 13+10 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - ...

• lda.brandenburg.de

  Antragsberechtigung, Allgemein zugängliche Quelle, Anwendungsbereich/Zuständigkeit

• fragdenstaat.de

  Allgemein zugängliche Quelle - Antragsberechtigung - Anwendungsbereich/Zuständigkeit

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lda.brandenburg.de (Kurzinformation)

  Antragsberechtigung, Allgemein zugängliche Quelle, Anwendungsbereich/Zuständigkeit

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Guseva v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 6987/07

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  The Court first notes that Article 10 cannot be read as guaranteeing a general right of access to information (see Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 74, Series A no. 116).

  As Judge Wojtyczek points out in his dissenting opinion (paragraph 2), beginning with a chamber judgment in Leander v. Sweden (26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 74) as confirmed in succeeding plenary Court or Grand Chamber judgments (Gaskin v. the United Kingdom [plenary Court], 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, § 52; Guerra and Others v. Italy [GC], 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, §§ 52-53; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X, § 172), there is a line of jurisprudential authority which unambiguously rules out reading into freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 any right of access to information from an unwilling provider and any corresponding positive obligation on public authorities to gather and disclose information to the general or specialised public.

  Although the prefect of Foggia prepared the emergency plan on the basis of the report submitted by the factory and the plan was sent to the Civil Defence Department on 3 August 1993, the applicants have yet to receive the relevant information... The Court reiterates that freedom to receive information, referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, "basically prohibits a government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him' (see the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29, § 74).

  circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on the individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual" (Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 74, Series A no. 116).

• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  The Court has emphasised that the most careful scrutiny on its part is called for when measures taken by the national authorities may potentially discourage the participation of the press, one of society's "watchdogs", in the public debate on matters of legitimate public concern (see Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, cited above, § 26 with references to Observer and Guardian, cited above, § 59; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; see also Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, where the Court held that the vital public interest in ensuring an informed public debate on the question of animal treatment outweighed the fishermen's interest).

  In cases concerning restrictions on freedom of the press it has on a number of occasions recognised that the public has a right to receive information as a corollary of the specific function of journalists, which is to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59(b), and the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63).

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  As Judge Wojtyczek points out in his dissenting opinion (paragraph 2), beginning with a chamber judgment in Leander v. Sweden (26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 74) as confirmed in succeeding plenary Court or Grand Chamber judgments (Gaskin v. the United Kingdom [plenary Court], 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, § 52; Guerra and Others v. Italy [GC], 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, §§ 52-53; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X, § 172), there is a line of jurisprudential authority which unambiguously rules out reading into freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 any right of access to information from an unwilling provider and any corresponding positive obligation on public authorities to gather and disclose information to the general or specialised public.

  This approach was confirmed in subsequent Grand Chamber judgments (see, in particular, the Grand Chamber judgments in Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), Guerra and Others v. Italy (19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I) and Roche v. the United Kingdom (no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X) and Chamber judgments (see, in particular, Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova, nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, § 18, 15 June 2004, and Jones v United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

  GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  As Judge Wojtyczek points out in his dissenting opinion (paragraph 2), beginning with a chamber judgment in Leander v. Sweden (26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 74) as confirmed in succeeding plenary Court or Grand Chamber judgments (Gaskin v. the United Kingdom [plenary Court], 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, § 52; Guerra and Others v. Italy [GC], 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, §§ 52-53; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X, § 172), there is a line of jurisprudential authority which unambiguously rules out reading into freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 any right of access to information from an unwilling provider and any corresponding positive obligation on public authorities to gather and disclose information to the general or specialised public.

  This approach was confirmed in subsequent Grand Chamber judgments (see, in particular, the Grand Chamber judgments in Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), Guerra and Others v. Italy (19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I) and Roche v. the United Kingdom (no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X) and Chamber judgments (see, in particular, Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova, nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, § 18, 15 June 2004, and Jones v United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005).

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  At the same time, the Court has consistently emphasised that Article 10 guarantees not only the right to impart information but also the right of the public to receive it (see Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59(b), Series A no. 216; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 50, ECHR 2012).

  In cases concerning restrictions on freedom of the press it has on a number of occasions recognised that the public has a right to receive information as a corollary of the specific function of journalists, which is to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59(b), and the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63).

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  38. Furthermore, in cases where the applicant was an association, the Court has found that when a non-governmental organisation is involved in matters of public interest it is exercising a role as a public watchdog of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, 22 April 2013; Vides Aizsardzbas Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, § 42, 27 May 2004; Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, § 27, 14 April 2009; Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia, no. 48135/06, § 20, 25 June 2013; Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung v. Austria, no. 39534/07, § 34, 28 November 2013).

  The paragraphs in the two Grand Chamber judgments cited (Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 93, 3 April 2012; and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 103, 22 April 2013) provide no reasoned authority whatsoever for overturning the unambiguous case-law as stated in, for example, Guerra so as to read into Article 10 a right of access to information, even be it for democratic society's "public watchdogs".

• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 31475/05

  KENEDI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  The Court recalls in that connection the case Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, 26 May 2009, which concerned the inability to obtain enforcement within a reasonable time of a final court decision authorising the applicant's access to archived documents.

  In those circumstances, the Court accepts that the rejection of the said request amounted to interference in the applicant association's right to receive information." This approach was subsequently confirmed in Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009), Kenedi v. Hungary, (no. 31475/05, 26 May 2009), Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia (no. 48135/06, 25 June 2013), and Osterreichische Vereiningung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung 28 GUSEVA v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT SEPARATE OPINIONS.

• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  The applicability of Article 6 § 1 does not depend on the status of the parties to the litigation or on the character of the legislation governing the determination of the dispute; what matters is the character of the right at issue, its substantive content and its effects, as well, in some instances, as the incidence of the proceedings for "private rights and obligations" (see, for example, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, §§ 89-90; and Baraona v. Portugal, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 122, §§ 42-44).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  The Court has emphasised that the most careful scrutiny on its part is called for when measures taken by the national authorities may potentially discourage the participation of the press, one of society's "watchdogs", in the public debate on matters of legitimate public concern (see Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, cited above, § 26 with references to Observer and Guardian, cited above, § 59; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; see also Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III, where the Court held that the vital public interest in ensuring an informed public debate on the question of animal treatment outweighed the fishermen's interest).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 25329/03

  FRASILA AND CIOCÎRLAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  56. The Court considers it necessary to distinguish the situation in the present case from that of the case of Frsil and Ciocîrlan v. Romania, no. 25329/03, § 58, 10 May 2012, where it found that the authorities bore no direct responsibility for the restriction of the applicants' freedom of expression.
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  SIRBU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42639/04

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 33846/07

  Kein unbedingter Anspruch auf Löschung unrichtiger Zeitungsartikel aus …
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04

  YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 77551/01

  DAMMANN c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99

  DORAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 34130/04

  STOYANOV ET TABAKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 69855/01

  LYUBOMIR POPOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2012 - 14966/04

  VASILEV ET DOYCHEVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

• VG Karlsruhe, 16.06.2016 - 3 K 4229/15

  Akteneinsicht in "Verwaltungsakten" (Berichtshefte) des Generalbundesanwalts im …

  Es kann offen bleiben, ob bzw. unter welchen Voraussetzungen aus Art. 10 EMRK auch ein allgemeiner, grundrechtsunmittelbarer Informationsanspruch für presseähnliche Nichtregierungsorganisationen folgt (vgl. EGMR, Urt. v. 28.11.2013 - 39534/07 -, Urt. v. 17.02.2015 - 6987/07 -).

  a) Allerdings spricht einiges dafür, dass nach der Rechtsprechung des EGMR, die bei der Anwendung des Art. 10 EMRK als Regelung im Range eines einfachen Bundesgesetzes (Art. 59 Abs. 2 S. 1 GG) ebenso zu berücksichtigen wäre wie bei der (im durch die allgemeinen Auslegungsgrundsätze vorgegebenen Rahmen gebotenen) konventionsfreundlichen Auslegung der Bestimmungen des Grundgesetzes (…vgl. BVerfG, Beschl. v. 14.10.2004 - 2 BvR 1481/04 -, BVerfGE 111, 307 = juris, Rn. 32), auch presseähnlichen Nichtregierungsorganisationen ein grundrechtsunmittelbarer Anspruch auf Zugang zu unveröffentlichten staatlichen Informationen zukommen kann (…vgl. EGMR, Urt. v. 14.04.2009 - 37374/05, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary -, Rn. 27ff., 35f.;… Urt. v. 25.06.2013 - 48135/06, Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia -, Rn. 20, 24 …und Urt. v. 28.11.2013 - 39534/07, Österr. Vereinigung z. Erhaltung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes. v. Austria -, Rn. 34ff., 41ff.; Urt. v. 17.02.2015 - 6987/07, Guseva v. Hungary -, Rn. 38).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 21.12.2016 - C-213/15

  Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt einen umfassenderen Zugang zu Dokumenten des …

  30 - Vgl. z. B. Urteile des EGMR vom 10. Juli 2006, Sdru?¾ení Jihoceské Matky/Tschechische Republik (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0710DEC001910103), vom 14. April 2009, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért/Ungarn (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0414JUD003737405, § 35), vom 3. April 2012, Gillberg/Schweden (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0403JUD004172306, § 82 und 83), und vom 17. Februar 2015, Guseva/Bulgarien (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0217JUD000698707, § 53).