Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REDAKTSIYA GAZETY ZEMLYAKI v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 105, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  In that connection, it points out that the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by a national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  It is incumbent on the press to impart information and ideas on subjects of public interest, and the public also has a right to receive them (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 102, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, 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 v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  Journalistic freedom covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  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 Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  However, even where the statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement exists, 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; with regard to Russian cases, see, for example, Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia, no. 27570/03, § 38, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  The impugned interference therefore must be seen in the context of the essential role of the press in ensuring the proper functioning of political democracy (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 59, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  The Court reiterates that, under Article 41 of the Convention, 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, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27570/03

  Nowaja Gaseta Woronesch ./. Rußland

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 64184/11

  PARASKEVOPOULOS v. GREECE

  In examining these types of cases and when conducting an assessment of the proportionality of the impugned interference with freedom of expression, the Court has taken into account (i) the position of the person exercising his freedom of expression; (ii) the position of the person against whom the impugned statements were made; (iii) the subject matter and context of the statements; (iv) the nature of those statements (whether they were statements of fact or value judgments); (v) other characteristics of the remarks, such as the form or medium and the language used; and (vi) the nature and severity of the sanction imposed (see, for instance, Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 40, 21 November 2017; Brosa v. Germany, no. 5709/09, § 38, 17 April 2014; and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 42182/11

  TOLMACHEV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the facts of the case and its finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts" failure to apply the relevant Convention standards in the course of the two sets of defamation proceedings against the applicant (see paragraph 56 above), and in the interests of brevity, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility or the merits of the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; see also, within the context of Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, Fatih Tas v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 6813/09, § 21, 10 October 2017; Lacroix v. France, no. 41519/12, § 53, 7 September 2017; and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 52, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

  The applicants also pointed out that in its case-law the Court had already criticised domestic courts for their inability to distinguish between facts and opinions (they referred to Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 46, 21 November 2017).

 
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 77086/14

  SHENDEROVICH v. RUSSIA

  When examining the defamation claims against the applicant brought by a Deputy Chairperson of the State Duma, the domestic courts did not assess whether the word "scoundrels" represented a value judgment not susceptible of truth rather than a statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 96, ECHR 2004-XI, and Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether this expression should be seen in the context of the claimant's position as a member of parliament open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 38, ECHR 2001-II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 74389/10

  PRONYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The domestic courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of truth rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 96, ECHR 2004-XI, and Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether such statements should be seen in the context of the claimants" position as public figures open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 38, ECHR 2001-II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298, and Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 48, 8 October 2019)).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 11971/10

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The two first-instance courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI, and Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether they should be seen in the context of Ramzan Kadyrov's position as a political public figure open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 38, ECHR 2001-II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see, with further references, Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 48, 8 October 2019)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 44414/12

  ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA

  In view of the limited scope of their reasoning in this respect, the Court is not persuaded by their approach (see Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 88, 28 July 2020) as the first-instance court omitted to consider certain essential elements: it disregarded the fact that the pre-investigation inquiry had been resumed by the date of the delivery of its judgment in the defamation proceedings (see paragraph 16 above) thus failing to base itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019); it did not assess whether it represented a value judgment not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI); it did not take into account the claimant's position as a chair of an electoral commission (see Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017) or of the applicant's position as a member of the Tambov City Duma and thus an elected representative of the people (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 15, 7 July 2020); and it did not consider that the interview had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018) even though the claimant's conduct in his capacity of the chair of an electoral commission was clearly of legitimate concern to the general public (compare Monica Macovei, cited above, § 86).