Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOSKUIL v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 Violation of Art. 5-1 Remainder inadmissible Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (5)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Rechtssachen Voskuil gegen die Niederlande und Tillack gegen Belgien

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Presserechtlicher Quellen- und Informantenschutz gestärkt

• beck.de (Kurzinformation)

  Presserechtlicher Quellen- und Informantenschutz gestärkt

• kostenlose-urteile.de (Kurzmitteilung)

  Urteil zu Quellenschutz: Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte stärkt Informantenschutz - Journalist muss Quelle nicht angeben

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 64752/01

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2008, 2563

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01

  As the Court has held many times, the existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage; the question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable position is not a matter for Article 34 of the Convention and the issue of damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 13, § 27; as a recent example, The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 65, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

  Barthold ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01

  Since 1985 the Court has frequently made mention of the task of the press as purveyor of information and "public watchdog" (see, among many other authorities, Barthold v. Germany, judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 26, § 58; Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 27, § 44; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63; more recently, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 93).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01

  Since 1985 the Court has frequently made mention of the task of the press as purveyor of information and "public watchdog" (see, among many other authorities, Barthold v. Germany, judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 26, § 58; Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 27, § 44; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63; more recently, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re, cited above, § 93).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01

  The Court has stated the principles generally applicable as follows (see, among many other authorities, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 88-91, ECHR 2004-XI, case-law references omitted):.
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  BRANCHE DE MOSCOU DE L'ARMEE DU SALUT c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01

  As the Court has held many times, the existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage; the question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable position is not a matter for Article 34 of the Convention and the issue of damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 13, § 27; as a recent example, The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 65, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01

  Furthermore, it has to be established that the costs and expenses were actually incurred, were necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to quantum (see, among many other authorities, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (former Article 50), judgment of 24 February 1983, Series A no. 59, p. 9, § 20).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.09.2021 - C-302/20

  Autorité des marchés financiers - Vorabentscheidungsverfahren - Binnenmarkt für …

  73 Vgl. dazu etwa EGMR, Urteile vom 22. November 2007, Voskuil/Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2007:1122JUD006475201, § 65), vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B. V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, § 59), und vom 25. Oktober 2011, Altug Taner Akçam/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2011:1025JUD002752007, § 75).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 26892/12

  WANNER v. GERMANY

  Er weist erneut darauf hin, dass die Verpflichtung, in einem Strafverfahren auszusagen, in der Regel eine normale staatsbürgerliche Pflicht in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft in einem Rechtsstaat darstellt (siehe Voskuil./. Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 64752/01, Rdnr. 84, 22.