Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA v. SLOVENIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA v. SLOVENIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20981/10
• EGMR, 05.04.2017 - 20981/10

Papierfundstellen

• afp 2016, 137

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 32131/08

  TUSALP v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20981/10

  Having already held that Article 10 protects both the content and the form of expression (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204), the Court considers that even offensive language, which may fall outside the protection of freedom of expression if its sole intent is to insult, may be protected by Article 10 when serving merely stylistic purposes (see Tusalp v. Turkey, nos. 32131/08 and 41617/08, § 48, 21 February 2012).
• EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 37698/97

  LOPES GOMES DA SILVA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20981/10

  The Court has emphasised on many occasions that a politician must in this regard display a greater degree of tolerance than a private individual, especially when he himself makes public statements that are susceptible of criticism (see, among many other authorities, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 29, Reports 1997-IV; and Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, § 30, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20981/10

  Having already held that Article 10 protects both the content and the form of expression (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204), the Court considers that even offensive language, which may fall outside the protection of freedom of expression if its sole intent is to insult, may be protected by Article 10 when serving merely stylistic purposes (see Tusalp v. Turkey, nos. 32131/08 and 41617/08, § 48, 21 February 2012).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 39394/98

  SCHARSACH ET NEWS VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20981/10

  Although journalists are required to respect certain boundaries, in particular with regard to the reputation and rights of others, their duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with their obligations and responsibilities - 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, 17.04.2014 - 20981/10

  Moreover, the impugned statement was made in the context of a political debate on a question of public interest, where few restrictions are acceptable under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV), and was directed against a politician.

• LG Hamburg, 17.05.2016 - 324 O 255/16

  Einstweilige Verfügung gegen Jan Böhmermann wegen teilweise …

  Dieser Grundsatz ist auch für den Antragsteller als ausländisches Staatsoberhaupt zugrunde zu legen (s. auch EGMR, AfP 2016, 137).
• LG Hamburg, 10.02.2017 - 324 O 402/16

  Erdoğan gegen Böhmermann auch im Hauptsacheverfahren erfolgreich

  Dies gilt auch für den Kläger als ausländisches Staatsoberhaupt (vgl. EGMR, AfP 2016, 137).