Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLIWCZYNSKI AND SZTERNEL v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ?šLIWCZY?ƒSKI AND SZTERNEL v. POLAND

  Art. 11, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  The general principles of the Court's case-law concerning freedom of press are set out, in particular, in Bédat (cited above, §§ 48 54), Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC] (no. 931/13, §§ 124-27 and 186, 27 June 2017) and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC] (nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 100-103, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  It is true that the dominant position of the State institutions requires the authorities to show restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings in matters of freedom of expression (see, among many other authorities, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  In any event, the applicants' argument was rather directed towards the question whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", a matter which the Court will examine below (see Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 58-62, 19 April 2011).

 
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 68974/11

  GIESBERT ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  The Court agrees with the conclusion of the domestic courts that the applicants, being professional journalists, must have been aware of the confidential nature of the information that they were going to publish and that the decision on access to the case files was not tantamount to permission to publish the information contained therein (see paragraphs 16 and 20 above, and compare Giesbert and Others v. France, nos. 68974/11 and 2 others, § 86, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 23.09.2021 - 26826/16

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA (No. 4)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  The Court's conclusion 30. The general principles relating to the application of the admissibility criterion contained in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention to cases concerning freedom of expression are set out, for example, in Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 4) (no. 26826/16, § 26, 23 September 2021).
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 34159/17

  M.L. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  In assessing the necessity of the interference, it is important to examine the way in which the relevant domestic authorities dealt with the case, and in particular whether they applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see M.L. v. Slovakia, no. 34159/17, § 35, 14 October 2021).
• EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 29690/06

  URBAN c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  The Government relied on previous cases in which the Court had recognised a constitutional complaint as an effective remedy (citing Szott-Medynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003; Pachla v. Poland (dec.) no. 8812/02, 8 November 2005; and Jerzy Urban v. Poland (dec.) no. 29690/06, 7 September 2010).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 2244/14

  The Government relied on previous cases in which the Court had recognised a constitutional complaint as an effective remedy (citing Szott-Medynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003; Pachla v. Poland (dec.) no. 8812/02, 8 November 2005; and Jerzy Urban v. Poland (dec.) no. 29690/06, 7 September 2010).