Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GASIOR v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 10 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see the following judgments: Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 41; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23, § 31).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see the following judgments: Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 41; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 23, § 31).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  The Court recalls that, in view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot as such be considered disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-IV; Dlugolecki cited above § 47).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 42; Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1567, § 54; and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  However, in the present case, the Court agrees with the domestic courts and considers that the applicant's letters contained specific allegations of fact, which as such were susceptible to proof (see, McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 83, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  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 are "relevant and sufficient" (see Lingens, cited above, pp. 25-26, § 40, and Barfod v. Denmark, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28).

• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  It appears therefore that the impugned utterances are a mix of assertions of facts and value judgments (compare Kaperzynski v. Poland, no. 43206/07, § 64, 3 April 2012; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-III; Gasior v. Poland, no. 34472/07, § 42, 21 February 2012; Dybek v. Poland (dec.) no. 62279/16, § 27, 25 September 2018; and Zybertowicz v. Poland, no. 59138/10, § 46, 17 January 2017).