Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOFRANSCHI v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97

  GUNDUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34690/05

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (for an analysis of the relevant principles in more detail, see Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, §§ 43-54, ECHR 2006-I; Aydın Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, §§ 22-27, 2 May 2006; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI; and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 65-69, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), including the further references cited therein).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34690/05

  The Court further notes that the applicant did not resort in his letter to abusive, strong or intemperate language, albeit that it might be said to have contained a certain number of emotional expressions verging on exaggeration or provocation (cf. Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 50692/99

  AYDIN TATLAV c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34690/05

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (for an analysis of the relevant principles in more detail, see Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, §§ 43-54, ECHR 2006-I; Aydın Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, §§ 22-27, 2 May 2006; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI; and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 65-69, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), including the further references cited therein).

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 17224/11

  MEDZLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRCKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  In this connection the Court finds particularly noteworthy the approach followed by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the present case (see paragraph 33 above), relying in substance on Convention case-law developed in a comparable group of cases where the Court found on the facts that "the requirements of protection under Article 10 of the Convention ha[d] to be weighed not in relation to the interests of the freedom of the press or of open discussion of matters of public concern but rather against the applicants" right to report alleged irregularities in the conduct of State officials" (see Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 23, 5 October 2006; Siryk v. Ukraine, no. 6428/07, § 42, 31 March 2011; Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 29, 21 December 2010; Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 41, 8 April 2010; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 28, 18 December 2008; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, ECHR 2003-IV).

  Accordingly, we conclude that the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were not "relevant and sufficient" (see, for example, Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 34, 21 December 2010) to justify the interference with the applicants" freedom of expression.

• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  Finally, with regard to the proportionality of the restriction on the applicant's freedom of expression, the Court's case-law attaches considerable importance to the audience targeted by the impugned statements (see, for example, Grigoriades v. Greece, 25 November 1997, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 29, 18 December 2008; and Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 33, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 79039/16

  A.M.P. v. ROMANIA

  For the Court, not only did the memorandum have a limited impact (see Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 33, 21 December 2010), but also the sole statement found to be inaccurate did not possess sufficient gravity to negatively impact the applicant's reputation.
• EGMR - 37693/20 (anhängig)

  SIDEREVA v. BULGARIA

  Was the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression "prescribed by law" and "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, §§ 26-34, 21 December 2010; Siryk v. Ukraine, no. 6428/07, §§ 31-48, 31 March 2011; Bargão and Domingos Correia v. Portugal, nos.