Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Kanzlei Prof. Schweizer

  Presseartikel gegen Politiker

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 10 Not necessary to examine Art. 6 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit festgestellt

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  "fair comment": wenn Gerichtsberichterstattung zur politischen Satire wird

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  Accordingly, the Court must exercise caution when the measures taken by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of public interest (see, for instance, Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 58, ECHR 2001-III, and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, pp. 25-26, § 35).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  As it did in similar cases, the Court will take the following elements into account: the position of the applicant, the position of Mr Stadler who brought the proceedings and the nature and subject matter of the article at issue (see, for instance, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft, cited above, § 31, and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 35, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  As regards the general principles relating to freedom of the press in the context of political criticism and the question of assessing the necessity of an interference with that freedom, the Court refers to the summary of its established case-law in the cases of Feldek v. Slovakia (no. 29032/95, §§ 72-76, ECHR 2001-VIII, with further references) and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria (no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).

 
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  Accordingly, the Court must exercise caution when the measures taken by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of public interest (see, for instance, Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 58, ECHR 2001-III, and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, pp. 25-26, § 35).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant concludes a settlement in the domestic proceedings and renounces further use of local remedies, he or she will generally no longer be able to claim to be a victim in respect of those matters (see Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; and Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/00, 12 September 2000).
• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 41894/98

  HAY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant concludes a settlement in the domestic proceedings and renounces further use of local remedies, he or she will generally no longer be able to claim to be a victim in respect of those matters (see Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; and Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/00, 12 September 2000).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  As regards the general principles relating to freedom of the press in the context of political criticism and the question of assessing the necessity of an interference with that freedom, the Court refers to the summary of its established case-law in the cases of Feldek v. Slovakia (no. 29032/95, §§ 72-76, ECHR 2001-VIII, with further references) and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria (no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).

• LG Hamburg, 19.01.2007 - 324 O 283/06

  Verletzung des Persönlichkeitsrechts sowie des Unternehmenspersönlichkeitsrechts, …

  Aus Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG oder aus Art. 10 Abs. 1 und 2 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) mag sich ableiten lassen, dass dann, wenn eine Person in einer Stellungnahme zu einer Frage von großem öffentlichen Interesse von unzutreffenden Tatsachen ausgegangen ist, dies ihre Verantwortlichkeit unter Umständen dann nicht begründet, wenn die Äußerung sich insgesamt als eine faire Aussage zu Angelegenheiten von öffentlichem Interesse ("fair comment on matters of public interest") darstellt (so jüngst der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte - EGMR -, Entsch. v. 2.11.2006, Az. 13071/03 in Sachen Standard GmbH ./. Österreich, Rdnr. 55 der Entscheidungsgründe).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 46443/09

  BJÖRK EIÐSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND

  Though they may have been capable of causing injury to Mr Y's reputation, the Court sees no cause for criticising the applicant for not having distanced herself from the contents of Mrs Z's statements (Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 64, ECHR 2001-III; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 53, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 43206/07

  Kaperzyński ./. Polen

  Nevertheless, the Court must exercise caution when the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in a discussion of matters of legitimate public concern (see Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 49, 2 November 2006; Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 37, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  What matters, however, is whether the impugned statements, seen in the context of the manner and scope of their dissemination, can be viewed as fair comment on matters of public interest (see, for instance, Jerusalem, cited above, § 44; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, § 55, 2 November 2006; and Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 95, 26 February 2009) or whether, instead, they amounted to a gratuitous personal attack (see, for example, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 16230/07

  DIE FREIHEITLICHEN IN KARNTEN v. AUSTRIA

  Therefore the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the alleged violation (see Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria, no. 13071/03, §§ 33-34, 2 November 2006, and Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 36, 4 June 2009).