Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 10 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH AND KLAUS BEERMANN v. GERMANY
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
No violation of Art. 10 (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
- juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 18.12.1987 - 10572/83
- EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
Papierfundstellen
- afp 1988, 231
- Serie A Nr. 165
Wird zitiert von ... (90) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79
Barthold ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
This is so in spheres such as that of competition, in which the situation is constantly changing in accordance with developments in the market and in the field of communication (see the Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 22, § 47, and, mutatis mutandis, the Müller and Others judgment, cited above, Series A no. 133, p. 20, § 29).The Court must confine its review to the question whether the measures taken on the national level are justifiable in principle and proportionate (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Barthold judgment, Series A no. 90, p. 25, § 55).
In my view - and here too I find myself in agreement with the joint dissenting opinion - it is necessary to ask whether it was established convincingly (see the Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 25, § 58) that the private interests of the Club were more important than the general interest, in accordance with which not only the specialised reader but also the public as a whole should have been able to acquaint themselves with facts having a certain importance in the context of the struggle of small and medium-sized retail undertakings against the large-scale distribution companies.
[2] Handyside judgment, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; Sunday Times, cited above, p. 40, § 65; Barthold judgment, 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 26, § 58; Lingens judgment, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 41; and Müller and Others judgment, 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, § 33.
- EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
Such information cannot be excluded from the scope of Article 10 § 1 (art. 10-1) which does not apply solely to certain types of information or ideas or forms of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, the Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 19, § 27).This is so in spheres such as that of competition, in which the situation is constantly changing in accordance with developments in the market and in the field of communication (see the Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 22, § 47, and, mutatis mutandis, the Müller and Others judgment, cited above, Series A no. 133, p. 20, § 29).
[2] Handyside judgment, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; Sunday Times, cited above, p. 40, § 65; Barthold judgment, 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 26, § 58; Lingens judgment, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 41; and Müller and Others judgment, 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, § 33.
- EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85
BARFOD c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
The Court has consistently held that the Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the existence and extent of the necessity of an interference, but this margin is subject to a European supervision as regards both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court (see, as the most recent authority, the Barfod judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28).In exercising its power of review, the Court must look at the impugned court decision in the light of the case as a whole (see the above-mentioned Barfod judgment, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28).
[5] Barfod judgment, 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28; see also Barthold judgment, cited above, loc.
- EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
The interpretation and application of such legislation are inevitably questions of practice (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49).[1] See inter alia Klass and Others judgment, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, and Sunday Times judgment, 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 41, § 65.
- EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
[1] See inter alia Klass and Others judgment, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, and Sunday Times judgment, 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 41, § 65. - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
[2] Handyside judgment, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; Sunday Times, cited above, p. 40, § 65; Barthold judgment, 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 26, § 58; Lingens judgment, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 41; and Müller and Others judgment, 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, § 33. - BVerfG, 15.11.1982 - 1 BvR 108/80
Boykottaufruf
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83
"As the Federal Constitutional Court held in its decision of 15 November 1982 (1 BvR 108/80 and others [Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, volume 62, pp. 230-248]), the requirements which must be satisfied in order for freedom of expression and of the press to override other legal interests protected under statutes of general application are not fulfilled where an item published in the press is intended to promote, in the context of commercial competition, certain economic interests to the detriment of others.
- EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53649/09
Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung
Die vorliegende Beschwerde verlangt eine Prüfung des angemessenen Gleichgewichts, das zwischen dem Recht des Beschwerdeführers auf Achtung seines Privatlebens unter dem Blickwinkel der dem Staat nach Artikel 8 der Konvention obliegenden positiven Pflichten und der Meinungsfreiheit der Gesellschaft nach Artikel 10 der Konvention herzustellen ist, der auch auf kommerzielle Meinungsäußerungen Anwendung findet (M../. Deutschland, 20. November 1989, Rdnr. 26, Serie A Band 165), da er "jeder Person" die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung zusichert, ohne danach zu unterscheiden, ob dies unter Umständen in Gewinnerzielungsabsicht geschieht (Neij und Sunde Kolmisoppi./. Schweden (Entsch.), Nr. 40397/12, 19. Februar 2013). - EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10
Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
This is borne out not only by the words "conditions", "restrictions", "preventing" and "prevention" which appear in that provision, but also by the Court's judgment in The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (26 April 1979, Series A no. 30) and in markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany (20 November 1989, Series A no. 165). - EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53495/09
Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung
Die vorliegende Beschwerde verlangt eine Prüfung des angemessenen Gleichgewichts, das zwischen dem Recht des Beschwerdeführers auf Achtung seines Privatlebens unter dem Blickwinkel der dem Staat nach Artikel 8 der Konvention obliegenden positiven Pflichten und der Meinungsfreiheit der Gesellschaft nach Artikel 10 der Konvention herzustellen ist, der auch auf kommerzielle Meinungsäußerungen Anwendung findet (m. und B../. Deutschland, 20. November 1989, Rdnr. 26, Serie A Band 165), da er "jeder Person" die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung zusichert, ohne danach zu unterscheiden, ob dies unter Umständen in Gewinnerzielungsabsicht geschieht (K../. Schweden (Entsch.), Nr. 40397/12, 19. Februar 2013).
- EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Le Gouvernement rappelle que dans l'arrêt markt intern Verlag GmbH et Klaus Beermann du 20 novembre 1989 (série A no 165, p. 21, par. 37), la Cour a déclaré ne pouvoir substituer son propre jugement à celui des juridictions nationales qui, par des motifs raisonnables, ont estimé nécessaires les restrictions en cause. - EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89
CASADO COCA v. SPAIN
Article 10 (art. 10) does not apply solely to certain types of information or ideas or forms of expression (see the markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, p. 17, para. 26), in particular those of a political nature; it also encompasses artistic expression (see the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 19, para. 27), information of a commercial nature (see the markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment previously cited, ibid.) - as the Commission rightly pointed out - and even light music and commercials transmitted by cable (see the Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 22, paras. 54-55).Under the Court's case-law, the States parties to the Convention have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of an interference, but this margin is subject to European supervision as regards both the relevant rules and the decisions applying them (see, inter alia, the markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment previously cited, Series A no. 165, p. 20, para. 33).
Any such restrictions must, however, be closely scrutinised by the Court, which must weigh the requirements of those particular features against the advertising in question; to this end, the Court must look at the impugned penalty in the light of the case as a whole (see, mutatis mutandis, the markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment previously cited, Series A no. 165, p. 20, para. 34).
- EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
L'Etat jouit par conséquent d'une marge d'appréciation quant aux recours dont une entreprise doit bénéficier en droit interne pour contester la véracité d'allégations susceptibles de nuire à sa réputation et pour en limiter les effets (markt intern Verlag GmbH et Klaus Beermann c. Allemagne, arrêt du 20 novembre 1989, série A no 165, pp. 19-21, §§ 33-38). - EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33629/06
Verwendung des roten Sterns und Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit (Schutz und Auslegung …
However, it must be emphasised that none of the cases cited by the Constitutional Court ( Barfod v. Denmark , judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149; Markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany , judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165; Chorherr v. Austria , judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266?B; Casado Coca v. Spain , judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285?A; Jacubowski v. Germany , judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 291?A) dealt with the particular question of the extent of State discretion in restricting the freedom of expression of politicians. - EuGH, 25.03.2004 - C-71/02
Karner
Dies gilt namentlich für den Gebrauch der Meinungsfreiheit im Geschäftsverkehr, besonders in einem Bereich, der so komplex und wandelbar ist wie die Werbung (vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteil vom 23. Oktober 2003 in der Rechtssache C-245/01, RTL Television, noch nicht in der amtlichen Sammlung veröffentlicht, Randnr. 73, und Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Urteile Markt intern Verlag GmbH und Klaus Beermann vom 20. November 1989, Reports of judgments and decisions , Serie A, Nr. 165, § 33, und VGT Verein gegen Tierfabriken/Schweiz vom 28. Juni 2001, Reports of judgments and decisions 2001-VI, §§ 69 bis 70). - EGMR, 13.07.2012 - 16354/06
MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE c. SUISSE
Similarly, States have a broad margin of appreciation in the regulation of speech in commercial matters or advertising (see markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, 20 November 1989, § 33, Series A no. 165, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285-A).[45] See markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, 20 November 1989, § 33, Series A no. 165; Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10890/84, § 72, 28 March 1990; Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 50, Series A no. 285 A; Demuth v. Switzerland, no. 38743/97, § 42-43, 5 November 2002; and Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (no. 3) v. Austria, no. 39069/97, § 30, 11 February 2003.
- EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 12726/87
AUTRONIC AG v. SWITZERLAND
The Court has, moreover, already held on three occasions that it is applicable to profit-making corporate bodies (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, the Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, and the Groppera Radio AG and Others judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173).But we note that in the instances mentioned in the judgment (The Sunday Times, Series A no. 30; Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann, Series A no. 165, and Groppera Radio AG and Others, Series A no. 173) the content of the information which the company wished to disseminate was of some significance to it or to the intended recipients.
- EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94
VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.12.2015 - C-547/14
Philip Morris Brands u.a. - Rechtsangleichung - Richtlinie 2014/40/EU - …
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 51405/12
Deutsche Medien scheitern
- EGMR, 25.08.1998 - 25181/94
HERTEL c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 38743/97
DEMUTH v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84
GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.07.2017 - C-194/16
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Bobek kann eine Gesellschaft, die eine Verletzung …
- EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 1562/10
REMUSZKO v. POLAND
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.04.2003 - C-71/02
Karner
- EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24662/94
LEHIDEUX AND ISORNI v. FRANCE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.06.2000 - C-376/98
GENERALANWALT NIAL FENNELLY SCHLÄGT DEM GERICHTSHOF VOR, DIE RICHTLINIE ÜBER …
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87
HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.12.2010 - C-324/09
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Jääskinen haftet eBay im Allgemeinen nicht für …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 24.11.2010 - C-316/09
MSD Sharp & Dohme - Art. 88 Abs. 1 Buchst. a der Richtlinie 2001/83/EG - …
- EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 31457/96
NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84
HUVIG c. FRANCE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.06.2006 - C-380/03
GENERALANWALT PHILIPPE LÉGER SCHLÄGT VOR, DIE VON DEUTSCHLAND GEGEN DIE …
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01
SALOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 69317/14
Modekampagne darf religiöse Symbole zeigen
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98
EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21132/05
TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti ./. Norwegen
- EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39069/97
KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG (N° 3) c. AUTRICHE
- EKMR, 13.10.1993 - 16844/90
NEDERLANDSE OMROEPPROGRAMMA STICHTING v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 8895/10
ÄRZTEKAMMER FÜR WIEN AND DORNER v. AUSTRIA
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.11.2008 - C-421/07
Damgaard - Humanarzneimittel - Begriff der Werbung - Verbreitung von …
- EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 2357/05
Rechtssache M. H. ./ gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 12268/03
HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIES (ICI PARIS) c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.06.1994 - 15088/89
JACUBOWSKI v. GERMANY
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.10.2010 - C-249/09
Novo Nordisk - Humanarzneimittel - Richtlinie 2001/83/EG - In einer medizinischen …
- EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 29271/95
DICHAND AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.06.2000 - C-74/99
Imperial Tobacco u.a.
- EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 41723/14
SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET PUBLISUISSE SA c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 13221/08
LINDHEIM AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 10247/09
SOSINOWSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87
THE SUNDAY TIMES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2)
- EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 11608/15
HERBAI v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 26935/05
Société de Conception de Presse et d’Edition et Ponson ./. France (franz.)
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 4982/07
KAOS GL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 13353/05
Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile et Dupuy ./. France (franz.)
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 35493/13
SZANYI v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 12138/08
AURELIAN OPREA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 28389/06
AGUILERA JIMÉNEZ AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05
TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 53025/99
FRANKOWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 72713/01
UKRAINIAN MEDIA GROUP v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 57829/00
VIDES AIZSARDZIBAS KLUBS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 38767/09
GÜLER ET ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 55760/11
KAPMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 13716/12
KAPMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 55153/12
DOR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 23693/03
BOJOLYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 40287/98
ALINAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 61561/08
INSTYTUT EKONOMICHNYKH REFORM, TOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 7969/04
I. B. gegen Deutschland
- EKMR, 31.08.1994 - 21554/93
JANSSEN v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 07.03.1991 - 14622/89
HEMPFING v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 16632/12
CSIBI v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 17229/13
FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 5)
- EKMR, 15.01.1993 - 18424/91
RÖDA KORSETS UNGDOMSFÖRBUND, GNESTA AND MODERATA SAMLINGSPATIET, TROSA-VAGNHÄRAD …
- EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 57313/00
HARLANOVA contre la LETTONIE
- EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 42429/98
KRONE VERLAG GmbH & CoKG and MEDIAPRINT ZEITUNGS- UND ZEITSCHRIFTENVERLAG GmbH & …
- EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96
LINDNER v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32137/96
WINTER v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 27388/95
GRAUSO v. POLAND
- EKMR, 21.01.1997 - 29473/95
GRECH AND MONTANARO v. MALTA
- EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25157/94
MEISTER v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 30.11.1992 - 15225/89
L.F. v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 01.07.1992 - 19520/92
W. v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 03.12.1991 - 15088/89
JACUBOWSKI v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 02.07.1991 - 17006/90
K. v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 08.11.1990 - 16555/90
R. GmbH v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 37054/17
NATIONALDEMOKRATISCHE PARTEI DEUTSCHLANDS (NPD) v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 10.04.1997 - 30549/96
MEISTER v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 05.09.1991 - 16632/90
COLMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 3636/17
KISLAOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EKMR, 11.01.1993 - 17505/90
NYDAHL v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 30.11.1992 - 15509/89
W.G. v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 30.11.1992 - 14923/89
G.S. v. AUSTRIA
- EKMR, 02.12.1991 - 17200/91
ÖSTERREICHISCHE SCHUTZGEMEINSCHAFT FÜR NICHTRAUCHER AND ROCKENBAUER v. AUSTRIA