Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 10 EMRK; § 46 StGB
  Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; Rechtfertigung: Schutz der unabhängigen Gerichte; Verhältnismäßigkeit; Gesetzesvorbehalt; legitimes Ziel; notwendig in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft); verhältnismäßige Strafzumessung (gerechter ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SKALKA v. POLAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.06.2001 - 43425/98
• EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 43425/98
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among others, the following judgments: Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31; Janowski , cited above, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway , no. 23118/93, § 43, to be published in the official reports of the Court's judgments and decisions; Perna v. Italy , no. 48898/99, § 38).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  What is at stake as regards protection of the authority of the judiciary, is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the accused, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, and also in the public at large (see, mutatis mutandis , among many other authorities, Fey v. Austria , judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 30).

• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 73797/01

  KYPRIANOU v. CYPRUS

  En particulier, les juges, eu égard à leur rôle et à leur devoir de discrétion, ne sont pas en mesure de répondre à des attaques personnelles par le biais des médias comme peuvent le faire les hommes politiques et d'autres personnages publics (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Barfod c. Danemark, 22 février 1989, série A no 149, Schöpfer c. Suisse, 20 mai 1998, Recueil 1998-III, et Skalka c. Pologne, no 43425/98, 27 mai 2003).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 40397/12

  NEIJ AND SUNDE KOLMISOPPI v. SWEDEN

  Enfin, la Cour rappelle que la nature et la lourdeur des peines infligées sont des éléments à prendre en considération lorsqu'il s'agit de mesurer la proportionnalité d'une atteinte au droit à la liberté d'expression garanti par l'article 10 (CumpÇŽnÇŽ et MazÇŽre c. Roumanie [GC], no 33348/96, § 111, CEDH 2004-XI, et Skalka c. Pologne, no 43425/98, § 41, 27 mai 2003).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 (see, for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XI).

 
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 24061/04

  Aleksey Ovchinnikov ./. Rußland

  If the sole intent of any form of expression is to insult a court, or members of that court, an appropriate punishment would not, in principle, constitute a violation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003).

  Finally, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 38, 27 May 2003).

• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  In that connection, the Court finds that even though the remarks may be regarded as showing a certain lack of regard for the Constitutional Court following its decision, they cannot be described as grave or as insulting of the judges of the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Ska³ka v. Poland , no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003; Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-V; and Nikula cited above, §§ 48, 52).
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 69857/01

  KATAMADZE c. GEORGIE

  En effet, rien ne laisse penser que la sanction en question, par sa nature ou sa lourdeur, était propre à empêcher la requérante de poursuivre sa carrière de journaliste ou à la dissuader de s'exprimer librement sur des sujets de société (cf., a contrario, Cumpana et Mazare, précité, §§ 112-119 ; Ceylan c. Turquie [GC], no 23556/94, § 37, CEDH 1999-IV ; Skalka c. Pologne, no 43425/98, §§ 41-42, arrêt du 27 mai 2003).
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE

  In assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalty imposed are among the factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I, and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 38, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 67783/13

  GASPARI v. ARMENIA (No. 2)

  If the sole intent of any form of expression is to insult, an appropriate punishment would not, in principle constitute a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Ska?‚ka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 34 and 41, 27 May 2003, and Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8921/05

  IGOR KABANOV v. RUSSIA

  In addition, the fairness of the proceedings, the procedural guarantees afforded (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II) and the nature and severity of the penalties imposed (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I; Skalka, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003; and Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2003-IV) are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10.
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08

  LYKIN v. UKRAINE

  However, a clear distinction must be made between criticism and insult (see, mutatis mutandis, Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003, and Marinova, cited above, § 88).
• EGMR, 14.11.2019 - 51599/11

  JAKIMOVSKI AND KARI PREVOZ v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  SLOMKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 58060/13

  MAGUIRE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 11976/03

  DEMIREL AND ATES (NO. 3) v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 29413/05

  DILIPAK (III) c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 57258/00

  YARAR v. TURKEY