Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,27405
EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,27405)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.09.2012 - 3084/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,27405)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. September 2012 - 3084/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,27405)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27405) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • HRR Strafrecht

    Art. 10 EMRK; Art. 6 EMRK; Art. 5 GG; Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 2 Abs. 1, 20 Abs. 3 GG; § 185 StGB; § 186 StGB; § 193 StGB
    Äußerungsfreiheit von Journalisten bei Publikationen zur möglichen Befangenheit eines Gerichts (Meinungsfreiheit und Beleidigungen von Richtern; faires Verfahren; Urteilsschelte; Abgrenzung von Tatsachen und Wertungen)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FALTER ZEITSCHRIFTEN GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FALTER ZEITSCHRIFTEN GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2) - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35 MRK
    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression Freedom to impart information)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

    Falter gegen Österreich (Nr. 2) - wenn Kritik an einer Richterin zur üblen Nachrede wird

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    Insofar as the applicant company had relied on Article 10 of the Convention, the Regional Court referred to the case of Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (26 April 1995, Series A no. 313), and observed that the press had the right and the duty to impart information on matters of public interest, including questions concerning the functioning of the justice system, and to criticise any shortcomings found, but in doing so it had to be mindful of the special role of the judiciary in society.

    The press is one of the means by which politicians and public opinion can verify that judges are discharging their heavy responsibilities in a manner that is in conformity with the aim which is the basis of the task entrusted to them (Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no. 313).

  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    Whilst it is true that the methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably and that it is therefore not for this Court, nor for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted (Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298), editorial discretion is not unbounded.
  • EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    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; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, cited above, § 62; and, more recently, Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, § 25, 1 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

    FLINKKILÄ AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others or of the proper administration of justice, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 59, and as a recent authority, Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 73, 6 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

    KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof (see Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania (GC), no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI, and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 58 in limine, 19 April 2011).
  • EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

    THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    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; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, cited above, § 62; and, more recently, Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, § 25, 1 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    The Court's assessment (a) General principles 36. According to the Court's well-established case-law, the test of necessity in a democratic society requires the Court to determine whether the interference complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30).
  • EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

    PADOVANI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    In this respect, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see, among other authorities, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 26, Series A no. 257-B, and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, § 41, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 34130/96

    MOREL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    In this respect, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see, among other authorities, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 26, Series A no. 257-B, and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, § 41, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

    BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 3084/07
    In assessing whether such a need exists and what measures should be adopted to deal with it, the national authorities are left a certain margin of appreciation (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway (GC), no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

    EERIKAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

    JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

    CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 55537/10

    HAUPT v. AUSTRIA

    However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II, and Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 3084/07, § 41, 18 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

    EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

    In addition, the Court reiterates that by reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis, and that they provide reliable and precise information in accordance with journalistic ethics (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 3084/07, § 37, 18 September 2012), or, in other words, in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 50, 29 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 60183/17

    PRICOPE v. ROMANIA

    In addition, the Court reiterates that by reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and that they provide reliable and precise information in accordance with journalistic ethics (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 3084/07, § 37, 18 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 22953/16

    STANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    In addition, the Court reiterates that by reason of the "duties and responsibilities" inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide reliable and precise information in accordance with journalistic ethics (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I, and Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 3084/07, § 37, 18 September 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht