Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RISTAMÄKI AND KORVOLA v. FINLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ristamäki and Korvola v. Finland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RISTAMAKI AND KORVOLA v. FINLAND

  Art. 10 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 53678/00

  Karhuvaara und Iltalehti / Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  It was thus "prescribed by law" (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004; Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X; and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.

  However, this margin goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those delivered by an independent court (see Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-X, and Flinkkilä and Others, cited above, § 70).

• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  "85. The Court reiterates that, under Article 10 of the Convention, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed under that provision is necessary (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 60, ECHR 2001-I, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 68).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  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 were "relevant and sufficient" (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski v. Poland, cited above, § 30; and News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 97, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and they must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 42; Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 54, Reports 1998-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 60641/08

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 97, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  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 were "relevant and sufficient" (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30; Lingens v. Austria, cited above, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149; Janowski v. Poland, cited above, § 30; and News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  Similar considerations apply also to persons in the public eye (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 75, Series A no. 294-B; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; and contrast with Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 65, ECHR 2004-VI; and MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 143, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

  BARFOD c. DANEMARK
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 56767/00

  SELISTO v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  EERIKAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 57195/17

  Keine Verletzung des Rechts auf privates Familienleben: Maddie McCann's Eltern …

  Ils se sont, par voie de conséquence, exposés inévitablement et consciemment à un contrôle attentif de leurs faits et gestes (voir Axel Springer AG, précité, § 54, et comparer avec Ristamäki et Korvola c. Finlande, no 66456/09, § 53, 29 octobre 2013, Salumäki c. Finlande, no 23605/09, § 55, 29 avril 2014, et M.L. et W.W. c. Allemagne, nos 60798/10 et 65599/10, § 106, 28 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 417/15

  RTBF c. BELGIQUE (N° 2)

  Bien que le domicile des époux V. fût soumis à une perquisition dans le cadre de l'enquête judiciaire, ils n'ont pas été inculpés à ce moment-là ni n'ont comparu devant la justice en tant qu'accusés (voir, a contrario, Ristamäki et Korvola c. Finlande, no 66456/09, § 53, 29 octobre 2013, où la diffusion d'un reportage litigieux coïncidait avec le début du procès pénal public à l'égard de la personne qui, du fait de sa participation audit procès, était « au-devant de la scène ").