Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KULIS ET RÓZYCKI c. POLOGNE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel - réparation Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KULIS AND RÓZYCKI v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  The State therefore enjoys a margin of appreciation as to the means it provides under domestic law to enable a company to challenge the truth, and limit the damage, of allegations which risk harming its reputation (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  Similarly, that interest will weigh heavily in the balance in determining, as must be done under paragraph 2 of Article 10, whether the restriction was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Worm v. Austria, judgment of 29 August 1997, Reports 1997-V, p. 1551, § 47, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 78, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 57, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders (see Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, § 43).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 19, § 38).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  In so doing, 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 their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 25-26, § 52, and Jerusalem v. Austria, cited above, § 33).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  A requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment may be excessive where there is no factual basis to support it (see Turhan v. Turkey, no. 48176/99, § 24, 19 May 2005, and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 57, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).

• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 22947/13

  News-Portal: Keine Haftung für Nutzerkommentare

  The State therefore enjoys a margin of appreciation as to the means it provides under domestic law to enable a company to challenge the truth, and limit the damage, of allegations which risk harming its reputation (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 35, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 23.01.2023 - 61435/19

  Verstoß gegen Meinungsfreiheit: Geschichten über gleichgeschlechtliche …

  Kuli and Róycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 39, 6 October 2009; and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 56, 9 February 2012; see also Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 52, Series A no. 24).
• 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, 02.02.2016 - 23497/05

  ERDENER c. TURQUIE

  S'agissant de la personne visée par les propos de la requérante, la Cour note que l'Université de Baskent a disposé du droit de se défendre contre des allégations diffamatoires en vertu des dispositions pertinentes du droit interne (voir, mutatis mutandis, Steel et Morris c. Royaume Uni, no 68416/01, § 94, CEDH 2005-II; Kulis et Rózycki c. Pologne, no 27209/03, § 35, 6 octobre 2009, et Kharlamov c. Russie, no 27447/07, § 25, 8 octobre 2015).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 19657/12

  FRISK AND JENSEN v. DENMARK

  The State therefore enjoys a margin of appreciation as to the means it provides under domestic law to enable a company to challenge the truth, and limit the damage, of allegations which risk harming its reputation (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 35, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

  Similarly, that interest will weigh heavily in the balance in determining, as must be done under paragraph 2 of Article 10, whether the restriction was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, for instance, Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 31, 6 October 2009).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 21768/12

  PETRO CARBO CHEM S.E. c. ROUMANIE

  L'État jouit par conséquent d'une marge d'appréciation quant aux recours dont une entreprise doit bénéficier en droit interne pour contester la véracité d'allégations susceptibles de nuire à sa réputation et pour en limiter les effets (Steel et Morris c. Royaume-Uni, no 68416/01, § 94, CEDH 2005-II, et Kuli?› et Ró?¼ycki c. Pologne, no 27209/03, § 35, 6 octobre 2009).
• EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 32418/11

  RZADZINSKI c. POLOGNE

  Eu égard à la nature des concessions que renferme la déclaration du Gouvernement, ainsi qu'au montant de l'indemnisation proposée - qui est conforme aux montants alloués dans des affaires similaires (Braun c. Pologne, no30162/10, 4 novembre 2014, et Kulis et Rózycki c. Pologne, no 27209/03, 6 octobre 2009) -, la Cour estime qu'il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l'examen de la requête (article 37 § 1 c) de la Convention).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 13114/05

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

  The State therefore enjoys a margin of appreciation as to the means it provides under domestic law to enable a company to challenge the truth, and limit the damage, of allegations which risk harming its reputation (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 35, 6 October 2009; and Uj, cited above, § 22).