Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire (second requérant) Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (premier requérant) Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant (second requérant) Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHARSACH AND NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award (second applicant) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (first applicant) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (second applicant) Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 39394/98
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 39394/98
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

Wird zitiert von ... (57)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  The Court considers that the first applicant's conviction entered in the criminal record entailed adverse effects and awards him, on an equitable basis, EUR 5, 000 under the head of non-pecuniary damage (see mutatis mutandis, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 65, ECHR 2002-II).

  The reference to Nikula v. Finland (no. 31611/96, § 65, ECHR 2002-II) is irrelevant because the situation in that case was very different.

• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  However, since under the Court's case-law a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10 (see De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, p. 249, § 47, and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II), their difference finally lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria (dec.), no. 42429/98, 20 March 2003).
• EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 42429/98

  KRONE VERLAG GmbH & CoKG and MEDIAPRINT ZEITUNGS- UND ZEITSCHRIFTENVERLAG GmbH & …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  However, since under the Court's case-law a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10 (see De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, p. 249, § 47, and Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 43, ECHR 2001-II), their difference finally lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria (dec.), no. 42429/98, 20 March 2003).

 
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  It is for this reason that in comparable Austrian cases (such as Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 29, § 69, and Schwabe v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-B, p. 35, § 39) no award was made for non-pecuniary damage.
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13704/88

  SCHWABE v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  It is for this reason that in comparable Austrian cases (such as Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 29, § 69, and Schwabe v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-B, p. 35, § 39) no award was made for non-pecuniary damage.
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  Moreover, the Court considers unconvincing the Regional Court's finding that a wife could not be expected to criticise her husband in public, as the statement in the present case clearly addressed Mrs Rosenkranz as a politician and public figure - at the material time, a member of the Lower Austria Regional Parliament and the deputy chairperson of the Lower Austria regional branch of the FPÖ - in respect of whom the limits of acceptable criticism are wider than for a private individual (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 85, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  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. 27, § 63; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; and Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, § 37, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  (iii) There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 12556/03

  PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA

  Tenant compte du contexte de l'affaire, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 10 et au rôle essentiel que joue la presse dans une société démocratique: si la presse ne doit pas franchir certaines limites, s'agissant notamment de la protection de la réputation et des droits d'autrui, il lui incombe néanmoins de communiquer, dans le respect de ses devoirs et responsabilités, des informations et des idées sur toutes les questions d'intérêt général (voir, parmi de nombreux précédents, Scharsach et News Verlagsgesellschaft c. Autriche, no 39394/98, § 30, CEDH 2003-XI, et Von Hannover précité, § 58).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08

  GENNER v. AUSTRIA

  As the Court has noted in previous cases, the difference lies in the degree of factual proof which has to be established (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-XI).

  The Court further considers that the use of the term "Nazi" does not automatically justify a conviction for defamation on the ground of the special stigma attached to it (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 43, ECHR 2003-XI, concerning the term "neo-fascist" see Karman v. Russia, no. 29372/02, § 39, 14 December 2006.

• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 35841/02

  ÖSTERREICHISCHER RUNDFUNK v. AUSTRIA

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

 
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 5709/09

  Die Meinungsfreiheit in der politischen Auseinandersetzung

  Aufgabe des Gerichtshof ist es jedoch nicht, bei der Ausübung seiner Überwachungsfunktion an die Stelle der nationalen Gerichte zu treten; vielmehr hat er im Lichte des Falles als Ganzem zu überprüfen, ob die von diesen im Rahmen ihres Beurteilungsspielraums getroffenen Entscheidungen mit Artikel 10 Abs. 2 der Konvention vereinbar sind, d.h. ob der in Rede stehende Eingriff in Bezug auf das rechtmäßig verfolgte Ziel verhältnismäßig war und ob die von den nationalen Gerichten zu seiner Rechtfertigung vorgebrachten Gründe "zutreffend und ausreichend" waren (siehe u.v.a. Scharsach und News Verlagsgesellschaft./. Österreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39394/98, Rdnr. 30 (iv), ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 4782/18

  Österreich verurteilt: Vorwürfe eines KZ-Überlebenden nicht geprüft

  In respect of the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Government submitted that the finding of a violation in comparable cases often constituted sufficient reparation in itself (citing, for example, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 51, ECHR 2003-XI, and Albert-Engelmann-Gesellschaft mbH v. Austria, no. 46389/99, § 38, 19 January 2006), as a judgment by the Court guaranteed applicants broad public attention and therefore restored their reputation.
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 5266/03

  NIKOWITZ AND VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  The Court further considers that there is also a direct link between the applicant company's claim for the loss of advertising revenue caused by the publication of the judgment in its magazine and the violation found (compare Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 55537/10

  HAUPT v. AUSTRIA

  As regards the question whether the attack on his personal honor and reputation the applicant complains of attained the requisite level of gravity for Article 8 of the Convention to come into play, the Court has acknowledged in previous cases that because of the special stigma which attaches to activities inspired by National Socialist ideas, any allegation that a person has an ambiguous relation to National Socialism constitutes a very serious reproach (see Wabl v. Austria, no. 24773/94, § 41, 21 March 2000 and Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 42, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20981/10

  MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA v. SLOVENIA

  Although journalists are required to respect certain boundaries, in particular with regard to the reputation and rights of others, their duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with their obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see, among many other authorities, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 76900/01

  ÖLLINGER c. AUTRICHE

  In this connection it must be borne in mind that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (ibid., § 88; see also Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria , no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).
• OLG München, 23.05.2023 - 18 U 3399/22

  Äußerung eines Nachrichtenmagazins

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte geht in ständiger Rechtsprechung, die auf der Ebene des Verfassungsrechts als Auslegungshilfe für die Bestimmung von Inhalt und Reichweite von Grundrechten dient (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss vom 26.02.2008 - 1 BvR 1602/07, NJW 2008, 1793), davon aus, dass sich ein Werturteil mit Rücksicht auf den Ruf des Betroffenen auf eine hinreichende Tatsachengrundlage stützen muss ("a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment", vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 13.11.2003 - 39394/98, BeckRS 2003, 157086 Rn. 40, m.w.N.).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 13071/03

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 19710/02

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH AND KRAWAGNA-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 64520/10

  UNGVÁRY AND IRODALOM KFT. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 76918/01

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5126/05

  YORDANOVA AND TOSHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

  MITYANIN AND LEONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 1799/07

  ZIEMBINSKI v. POLAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03

  GODLEVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 3316/04

  BOZHKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2006 - 46389/99

  ALBERT-ENGELMANN-GESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25147/09

  TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 54125/10

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 58547/00

  WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-GESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 11039/02

  SAVITCHI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  COJOCARU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 37464/02

  STANDARD VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH (No. 2) v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02

  KARMAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 52517/13

  SCHUMAN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

  EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 34598/12

  KOSC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 15601/02

  KULIS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02

  DYULDIN AND KISLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 47274/19

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 571/04

  KUBASZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18235/02

  DABROWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15653/02

  WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT M.B.H. (N° 3) v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 34159/17

  M.L. v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08

  INSTYTUT EKONOMICHNYKH REFORM, TOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 48723/07

  STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33501/04

  OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 30544/06

  NIKOLAY DIMITROV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 34472/07

  GASIOR v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  RAICHINOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 74002/13

  LIBICKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.05.2019 - 48174/11

  NIEMCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 2782/12

  NARODNI LIST D.D. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 19127/06

  JUCHA AND ZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 25464/05

  GAVRILOVICI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 23806/03

  DLUGOLECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 29413/05

  DILIPAK (III) c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 43797/98

  MALISIEWICZ-GASIOR v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 13540/04

  FALTER ZEITSCHRIFTEN GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 56720/00

  METZGER v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 15469/04

  ALEKSANDR KRUTOV v. RUSSIA