Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SABANOVIC v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 10 Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5995/06
• EGMR - 5995/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  Subject to paragraph 2 of that Article, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236, and Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 52, Series A no. 323).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  Where a statement amounts to a value judgment the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see, among many authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87 in fine, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  The Court has also already upheld the right to impart, in good faith, information on matters of public interest even where the statements in question involved untrue and damaging statements about private individuals (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III) and has emphasised that it has to be taken into account whether the expressions at issue concern a person's private life or their behaviour and attitudes in the capacity of an official (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VI).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  Lastly, the Court recalls that while the use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-XI; Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009; and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69 in limine, 12 October 2010), the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account (see, mutatis mutandis, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 111).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  Subject to paragraph 2 of that Article, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236, and Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 52, Series A no. 323).
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

  THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  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, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  In view of the above, especially bearing in mind the seriousness of the criminal sanction involved, and reaffirming its long-standing practice that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on the debate of questions of public interest (see Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-VIII), the Court finds that the interference in question was not necessary in a democratic society.
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  The Court has also already upheld the right to impart, in good faith, information on matters of public interest even where the statements in question involved untrue and damaging statements about private individuals (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III) and has emphasised that it has to be taken into account whether the expressions at issue concern a person's private life or their behaviour and attitudes in the capacity of an official (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  The Court has already held that an appeal to the Court of Serbia and Montenegro was an ineffective domestic remedy (see Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 37, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 184/06

  SAARISTO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5995/06

  Lastly, the Court recalls that while the use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-XI; Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009; and Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69 in limine, 12 October 2010), the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account (see, mutatis mutandis, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 111).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 37406/03

  DYUNDIN v. RUSSIA