Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COLOMBANI ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COLOMBANI AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• urheberrecht.org (Kurzinformation)

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Colombani (Le Monde) gegen Frankreich

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 51279/99
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

Wird zitiert von ... (47)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Indeed, that much had been accepted by the Court in Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway ([GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  He is certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, even when he is not acting in his private capacity, but the requirements of that protection have to be weighed against the interests of open discussion of political issues, since exceptions to freedom of expression must be interpreted narrowly (see, among other authorities, in particular, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, pp.
• EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

  VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  25-26, §§ 57-59, and Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1994, Series A no. 302, p. 17, § 37).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  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, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 62).

• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  It has pointed out that, although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others, its duty is to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest, and that not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas, the public also has a right to receive them (see among many other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III, and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

  Lastly, in order to assess the justification of an impugned measure, it must be borne in mind that the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded to the applicant are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 236; Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 61, ECHR 2001-VIII; Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-V; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 171 and 181, ECHR 2005-XIII; Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2006-XIII; Kudeshkina, cited above, § 83; and Morice, cited above, § 155).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Not only does it have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them (see, among many other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III, and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Although it must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on political issues and on other matters of general interest (see, among many other authorities, De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, judgment of 24 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, pp. 233-34, § 37; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III; and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  The Court notes that it has found a breach of Article 10 of the Convention in a number of cases in situations where under the domestic law an applicant was unable effectively to contest criminal charges brought against him, as he was either not allowed to adduce evidence of the truth of his statements, or to plead a defence of justification, or due to the special protection afforded to the party having the status of the victim in the criminal proceedings (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 48, Series A no. 236; Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-V; Pakdemirli v. Turkey, no. 35839/97, § 52, 22 February 2005; and Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, § 55, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 21277/05

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Not only does it have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them (see, among many other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999-III, and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

  SALOV v. UKRAINE

  A supposer même que l'article en cause puisse être considéré comme une contribution à une discussion d'intérêt général ou sur des questions politiques, je ne suis pas persuadée que le requérant ait agi de bonne foi dans le souci de fournir des informations précises et fiables à autrui (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Colombani et autres c. France, no 51279/99, § 65, CEDH 2002-V).
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 71111/01

  HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIES v. FRANCE

  The Court reiterates that it is the duty of the press to impart - in a manner consistent with its "duties and responsibilities" - information and ideas on all matters of public interest; not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas, but the public also has a right to receive them (see, among other authorities, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).

  As stated in paragraph 41 of the judgment, it is the duty of the press to impart - in a manner consistent with its duties and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest; not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them (see, among other authorities, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-V).

• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 11751/03

  ROMANENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Referring to the Court's case-law, the applicants insisted that the press should be able to rely on the content of official reports without having to undertake independent research (see Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-V).

  The Court has constantly held the view that the press "should normally be entitled, when contributing to public debate on matters of legitimate concern, to rely on the content of official reports without having to undertake independent research" (see Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 47, ECHR 2002-V; also Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 60, 16 November 2004).

• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY

  After all, this is the unequivocal message of those judgments which state that even a sanction of one euro (i.e. any sanction) might be disproportionate (see Eon v. France, no. 26118/10, 14 March 2013, and Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12

  EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 40454/07

  COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIÉS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 49085/07

  GÖRMÜS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 3)
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 12697/03

  MAMERE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 12138/08

  AURELIAN OPREA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 22649/08

  OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 42512/02

  MIHAIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 49108/11

  SAMOYLOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 19165/19

  ÖMÜR ÇAGDAS ERSOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 53421/10

  JIMÉNEZ LOSANTOS c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 64772/01

  LEEMPOEL AND S.A. ED. CINE REVUE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5126/05

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

  MITYANIN AND LEONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 29064/08

  FLOQUET ET ESMENARD c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 35839/97

  PAKDEMIRLI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 67369/16

  RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY B92 AD v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 12979/04

  GORELISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 25721/04

  RUSU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 3466/03

  TANASOAICA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 75510/01

  ARTUN ET GÜVENER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 25831/18

  DÜRMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 5)
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  KONIUSZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 6928/04

  TUDOR (N° 1) c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 6929/04

  TUDOR (N° 2) c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 34736/03

  OBUKHOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 19353/03

  SAYGILI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 32842/02

  MEDYA FM REHA RADYO VE ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A.S. c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 64178/00

  OZGUR RADYO-SES RADYO TELEVIZYON YAYIN YAPIM VE TANITIM AS. c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 54968/00

  PATUREL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10807/04

  VERAART v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 11751/03

  ROMANENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA