Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  It is thus clear that there is a direct causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 75 and 77, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  As set forth in Article 10 § 2, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among many other authorities, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  Although the press must not overstep various bounds set, in particular, for the protection of the reputation of others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see, among many other authorities, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  Furthermore, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  The Court reiterates that public officials are subject to wider limits of criticism than private individuals, although the criteria applied to them cannot be the same as for politicians (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I, or, more recently, Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, § 50, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 37698/97

  LOPES GOMES DA SILVA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  In any event, in the Court's view, what matters is not that the applicants were sentenced to a minor penalty, but that they were convicted at all (see Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 27209/03

  KULIS AND RÓZYCKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  Similarly, that interest will weigh heavily in the balance in determining, as must be done under paragraph 2 of Article 10, whether the restriction was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, for instance, Kulis and Rózycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 31, 6 October 2009).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  It must therefore be regarded as a direct result of the violation found (compare and contrast Kwiecien v. Poland, no. 51744/99, §§ 64-66, 9 January 2007, and, more recently, Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 33502/07

  MARINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8918/05

  33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, § 119, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 38435/05

  BODROZIC AND VUJIN v. SERBIA

• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 45083/06

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

  It is mindful that public prosecutors, as part of the judicial machinery in the broader sense of the term, should enjoy protection from offensive and abusive verbal attacks and unfounded accusations (see Lesník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2003-IV, and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 60, 22 November 2016).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 42713/15

  PATRÍCIO MONTEIRO TELO DE ABREU c. PORTUGAL

  C'est pourquoi il faut examiner avec une attention particulière toute ingérence dans le droit d'un artiste - ou de toute autre personne - à s'exprimer par ce biais, la satire contribuant au débat public (voir, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler c. Autriche, no 68354/01, § 33, 25 janvier 2007, Leroy c. France, no 36109/03, § 44, 2 octobre 2008, Alves da Silva c. Portugal, no 41665/07, § 27, 20 octobre 2009, Tusalp c. Turquie, nos 32131/08 et 41617/08, § 48, 21 février 2012, Grebneva et Alisimchik c. Russie, no 8918/05, § 59, 22 novembre 2016 et Kaboglu et Oran c. Turquie, nos 1759/08 et 2 autres, § 79, 30 octobre 2018).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 383/12

  KHURAL AND ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  For the Court, style constitutes part of the communication as the form of expression and is as such protected together with the content of the expression (see Gül and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870/02, § 41, 8 June 2010; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 20, 19 July 2011; and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 52, 22 November 2016).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 50123/06

  MILISAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Irrespective of the severity of the penalty which is liable to be imposed, a recourse to the criminal prosecution of journalists for purported insults, with the attendant risk of a criminal conviction and a criminal penalty, for criticising a public figure in a manner which can be regarded as personally insulting, is likely to deter journalists from contributing to the public discussion of issues affecting the life of the community (see paragraph 19 above; see, also, Bodrozic and Vujin v. Serbia, no. 38435/05, § 39, 23 June 2009, and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 65, 22 November 2016 (not yet final)).
• EGMR - 50750/21 (anhängig)

  SALAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Has there been an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, § 51, 18 December 2008, and Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia, no. 8918/05, § 65, 22 November 2016)?.