Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49, and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49, and Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 26, § 37).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  Journalistic freedom covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 19, § 38).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  Whether such grounds exist depends in particular on the nature and degree of the defamation in question and the extent to which the media can reasonably regard their sources as reliable with respect to the allegations (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-..., and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 28, § 63).
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  Moreover, although it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent politicians do, civil servants acting in an official capacity are, like politicians, subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  The Court reiterates that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debates on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 28525/95

  UNABHÄNGIGE INITIATIVE INFORMATIONSVIELFALT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  The Court recalls in this respect that the standard of proof for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge by a competent authority can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern (see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006, and Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  KARMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  The Court recalls in this respect that the standard of proof for establishing the well-foundedness of a criminal charge by a competent authority can hardly be compared to that which ought to be observed by a journalist when expressing his opinion on a matter of public concern (see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 42, 14 December 2006, and Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 46, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  The Court therefore considers that the Russian courts failed to recognise that the present case involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation (see, for similar reasoning, Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, ECHR 2007-...).

• EGMR, 31.10.2023 - 9602/18

  EGMR gibt Bild nach Debatte um Polizeigewalt recht: Bild.de muss Polizisten nicht …

  While the Court is mindful that police brutality is a matter of serious public concern and that the press has a vital interest in bringing such allegations to the public's attention (see Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 33, 14 October 2008; for the relevance of the presumption of innocence when determining the necessity of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, see Axel Springer SE and RTL Television GmbH v. Germany, no. 51405/12, § 42, 21 September 2017), the Court notes that in the present case the applicant company did not argue that P. had been involved in any kind of misconduct.
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  It should also be observed that the individuals mentioned in the article were public officials, whom the Court has found as a rule to be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-XI; Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 12138/08

  AURELIAN OPREA v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates in this connection that senior civil servants acting in an official capacity are subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-XI; Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

  Considering that the impugned statements concerning the three claimants employed by or affiliated with the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office were not insulting (see, by contrast, Lesník, cited above, §§ 15 and 18) or attacking their personality (see, by contrast, Perna, cited above, § 13), the Court is satisfied that, as civil servants, they were subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-XI; and Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 44332/16

  DANES ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  En deuxième lieu, la Cour rappelle que, lorsque les journalistes reprennent des déclarations faites par une tierce personne, le critère à appliquer ne consiste pas à se demander si ces journalistes peuvent prouver la véracité des déclarations, mais s'ils ont agi de bonne foi et se sont conformés à l'obligation qui leur incombe d'habitude de vérifier une déclaration factuelle en s'appuyant sur une base réelle suffisamment précise et fiable qui pourrait être tenue pour proportionnée à la nature et à la force de leur allégation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Dioundine c. Russie, no 37406/03, § 35, 14 octobre 2008), sachant que plus l'allégation est sérieuse, plus la base factuelle doit être solide (Pedersen et Baadsgaard c. Danemark [GC], no 49017/99, § 78, CEDH 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 21768/12

  PETRO CARBO CHEM S.E. c. ROUMANIE

  De plus, la Cour constate que les tribunaux internes n'ont pas admis que le litige portait sur un conflit entre le droit à la liberté d'expression et celui à la protection de la réputation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Dyundin c. Russie, no 37406/03, § 33, 14 octobre 2008).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 13471/05

  MENGI v. TURKEY

  Finally, the Court reiterates that, although it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent politicians do, civil servants acting in an official capacity are, like politicians, subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008 and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III and the references cited therein) and they must display a greater degree of tolerance, especially when they themselves makes public statements that are susceptible of criticism (see, for example, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 59, Reports 1997-IV).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  SABANOVIC v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

  The Court recalls in this connection that senior civil servants acting in an official capacity are subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-XI; Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  BOZHKOV v. BULGARIA

  It should also be observed that the individuals mentioned in the article were public officials, whom the Court has found as a rule to be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-XI; Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 26, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 59347/11

  MAGOSSO ET BRINDANI c. ITALIE

  Il convient également de noter que les déclarations de D.C. n'ont pas été réécrites par le premier requérant (voir, a contrario, Dyundin c. Russie, no 37406/03, § 37, 14 octobre 2008) ni remaniées (Stoll c. Suisse [GC], no 69698/01, §§ 145-152, CEDH 2007-V).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 79671/13

  GHEORGHE-FLORIN POPESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 44294/06

  CHELTSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  ROMANENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 62670/12 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA