Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 3)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Verurteilung einer Journalistin wegen Verdachtsberichterstattung unzulässig

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HLYNSDOTTIR (III) v. ICELAND

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108 to 113, ECHR 2012).

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012).".

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 125, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 39401/04

  MGN LIMITED AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 69; see also Jersild, cited above, § 35; Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-IV; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom, cited above, § 88; compare MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155; 18 January 2011; Von Hannover, cited above, §§ 106-107; and Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 87-88, 7 February 2012).

  However, if the assessment was made in the light of the principles resulting from its well-established case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts, which consequently will enjoy a wider margin of appreciation (see MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  Indeed, as the Court has previously held in the Article 10 context, "the quality of... judicial review of the necessity of the measure is of particular importance in this respect, including the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation" (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

  Indeed, as the Court has previously held in the Article 10 context, "the quality of... judicial review of the necessity of the measure is of particular importance in this respect, including the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation" (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts))."[1].

 
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 69; see also Jersild, cited above, § 35; Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-IV; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom, cited above, § 88; compare MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155; 18 January 2011; Von Hannover, cited above, §§ 106-107; and Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 87-88, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  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 Kyprianou, cited above, § 172, and, mutatis mutandis, among other authorities, Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, § 30, Series A no. 255-A).".
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99

  VERDENS GANG and AASE v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  Indeed, the rendering of an indictment in a media coverage after it has been read out at a trial hearing is a kind of situation where there may be special grounds for dispensing the press from its ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals (see Worm, cited above, § 55; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, §§ 66 and 68; Colombani and Others, cited above, § 65; and CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre, cited above, § 108), provided that the source has been clearly identified (Worm, cited above, § 55; see also McVicar cited above, § 84; Thoma, cited above, § 64; Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom, cited above, § 95).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 17107/05

  CAMPOS DAMASO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  Such a ground may exist where the statement at issue does not emanate from the newspaper itself but is based on or is directly quoting from an official document, but this 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, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, §§ 65-66; Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 78; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 84, ECHR 2002-III; Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal, no. 17107/05, §§ 35-38, 24 April 2008; Björk Eiðsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 46443/09, § 70, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, ECHR 2011 (however, the term "subsidiarity" does not appear in this judgment).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  However, as the Court also pointed out in that judgment, in order for Article 8 to come into play an attack on a person's reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see also A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos.
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98

  EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10

  The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see, among many other authorities, Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII; Perna, cited above, § 39; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 68, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 76918/01

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96

  NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 45130/06

  RUOKANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

• BGH, 31.05.2022 - VI ZR 95/21

  Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung: Voraussetzungen einer zulässigen …

  Schließlich ist Gegenstand der Berichterstattung der Beklagten der Inhalt einer öffentlichen (§ 169 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GVG) Hauptverhandlung (vgl. dazu Senat…, Urteil vom 19. März 2013 - VI ZR 93/12, NJW 2013, 1681 Rn. 27 f.;… BVerfGE 119, 309, 321 f. [juris Rn. 35]; EGMR, Urteile vom 2. Juni 2015 - 54145/10, Tz. 72 ff. - Erla Hlynsdóttir v. Iceland; vom 10. Februar 2009 - 3514/02, Tz. 63 ff. - Eerikäinen and others v. Finland).

  Eine solche Verbreitung darf die Presse zur Wahrnehmung berechtigter Interessen zumindest in der Regel für erforderlich halten, ohne eigene Recherchen über den Wahrheitsgehalt der Tatvorwürfe anzustellen und in diesem Rahmen eine Stellungnahme des Angeklagten einzuholen (vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 2. Juni 2015 - 54145/10, Tz. 73 - Erla Hlynsdóttir v. Iceland; vom 10. Februar 2009 - 3514/02, Tz. 63 ff. - Eerikäinen and others v. Finland).

• BVerfG, 07.07.2020 - 1 BvR 146/17

  Zulässiges Vorhalten von Verdachtsberichterstattung in Online-Pressearchiven

  (1) Zugunsten des Interesses an einer fortgesetzten Verfügbarkeit auch von Verdachtsberichterstattung ist zunächst in Rechnung zu stellen, dass es zu den verfassungsrechtlich gesicherten Aufgaben der Presse gehört, investigativ - in den Grenzen des Zulässigen - auch über Verdächtigungen von hohem öffentlichen Interesse zu berichten (BVerfGE 7, 198 ; 12, 113 ;… BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 2. Mai 2018 - 1 BvR 666/17 -, Rn. 16; EGMR, Erla Hlynsdottir v. Island, Urteil vom 2. Juni 2015, Nr. 54145/10, §§ 62 f.; 68 f.).
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 35030/13

  Petra Reski

  Der Gerichtshof hat allerdings auch betont, wie wichtig es ist, eine solche Quelle eindeutig kenntlich zu machen (siehe Erla Hlynsdottir./. Island (Nr. 3), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 54145/10, Rdnr. 73, 2.

 
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 9142/16

  SAGDIÇ c. TURQUIE

  Or la Cour estime que rien ne leur permettait de penser, dans la situation telle qu'elle se présentait à l'époque des faits, qu'ils pouvaient se fier à ces documents sans mener leurs propres investigations (voir, a contrario, Erla HlynsdÏŒttir c. Islande (no 3), no 54145/10, § 73, 2 juin 2015).

  In this context we reiterate that when the press contributes to a public debate concerning issues of general interest, it should in principle be able to rely on public reports without having to undertake an independent investigation of the veracity of the information reflected in such documents (compare Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-V; Gorelishvili v. Georgia, no. 12979/04, § 41, 5 June 2007; Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland (no. 3), no. 54145/10, § 73, 2 June 2015; and Seferi Yilmaz, cited above, § 78).

• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61949/08

  SEFERI YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  À cet égard, selon elle, il n'y avait rien qui aurait pu laisser penser aux auteurs des articles litigieux, dans la situation telle qu'elle se présentait à l'époque des faits, qu'ils ne pouvaient pas se fier aux documents en question, versés par la gendarmerie au dossier de l'instruction, sans avoir à entreprendre des recherches indépendantes (Erla Hlynsdottir c. Islande (no 3), no 54145/10, § 73, 2 juin 2015).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

  Although the press 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 all matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland (no. 3), no. 54145/10, § 62, 2 June 2015).
• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 60183/17

  PRICOPE v. ROMANIA

  Although the press 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 all matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland (no. 3), no. 54145/10, § 62, 2 June 2015).
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 22953/16

  STANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Although the press 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 all matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, Erla HlynsdÏŒttir v. Iceland (no. 3), no. 54145/10, § 62, 2 June 2015).
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 36487/12

  M.P. v. FINLAND

  The margin of appreciation in this context is measured by reviewing the extent to which the reasoning of the national courts engages with the general principles under Article 10 and the extent to which the balance struck between the competing rights at the domestic level is satisfactory (see Erla HlynsdÏ?ttir v. Iceland (no. 3), no. 54145/10, § 59, 2 June 2015; and Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos.