Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-General (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its duties and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports 1997-I; and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the law in question, the field it is designed to cover, and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 142, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  In previous cases the Court has considered that the balancing exercise could take account, under the heading of the "rights of others", of the general public interest, for instance relating to absence of distortion of the electoral process, including fair competition between the candidates (see also Erdoğan Gökçe v. Turkey, no. 31736/04, § 40, 14 October 2014, and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 78, 99 and 112, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  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, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 59).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its duties and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports 1997-I; and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  This might be relevant where certain candidates or parties, because of their relative financial strength, might have obtained an unfair advantage over those with less resources by being able to spend more, for instance on political advertising (see TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 72, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 75, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  Free elections and freedom of expression, particularly freedom of political debate, together form the bedrock of any democratic system (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 47, Series A no. 113, and the Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, §§ 41-42).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  Maestri ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that there is a possibility under Article 41 of the Convention that a commercial company may be awarded monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 8895/10

  ÄRZTEKAMMER FÜR WIEN AND DORNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  Therefore, it is not pertinent to refer to the Court's case-law relating to political advertising, in television broadcasting or otherwise (see TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti, cited above, §§ 64 and 67), or the case-law concerning publications within the commercial context of product marketing, an area in which States have traditionally enjoyed a wider margin of appreciation (see Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v. Austria, no. 8895/10, §§ 65-66, 16 February 2016).
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 29492/05

  KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 16.04.1991 - 15404/89

  PURCELL AND OTHERS c. IRLANDE
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD & CONSTANTINIDES v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 38951/13

  ABRAMYAN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99

  TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 6025/09

  KOVALEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 60189/15

  KASHLAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 72683/01

  CHEMODUROV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 49588/12

  TESLENKO v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

  His case, concerning a presidential election, had to be distinguished from cases about parliamentary elections, that is, cases which engaged considerations relating to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the legitimate aims for the interference with freedom of expression (of the print media, for instance, as in the case of Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, § 102, 21 February 2017).

  [1] See, respectively, Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia (no. 42911/08, 21 February 2017); OOO Informatsionnoye Agentstvo Tambov-Inform v. Russia (no. 43351/12, 18 May 2021); and Assotsiatsiya NGO Golos and Others v. Russia (no. 41055/12, 16 November 2021).

• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 45581/15

  SANCHEZ c. FRANCE

  S'il est vrai que la Cour accorde la plus haute importance à la liberté d'expression dans le contexte du débat politique et considère qu'on ne saurait restreindre le discours politique sans raisons impérieuses (paragraphe 84 ci-dessus), et qu'en période préélectorale les opinions et informations de toutes sortes doivent pouvoir circuler librement (Orlovskaya Iskra c. Russie, no 42911/08, § 110, 21 février 2017, et Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt, précité, § 56), elle renvoie cependant à son constat quant à la nature clairement illicite des commentaires litigieux (paragraphes 81-88).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 44873/09

  OGNEVENKO v. RUSSIA

  In the case of Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia (no. 42911/08, 21 February 2017), the Court reminded the authorities that they were obliged to respect the role of the mass media during an election campaign, notwithstanding the fact that the impugned article neither provided neutral information to the public nor complied with the ethical standards of journalism.

• EGMR, 20.01.2020 - 201/17

  MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY

  For this reason, it is particularly important in the period preceding an election that opinions and information of all kinds be permitted to circulate freely (see Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, § 110, 21 February 2017).
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 61178/14

  Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit durch Anwendung des ungarischen Mediengesetzes …

  [57] See, among other authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 132; Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, § 109, 21 February 2017; and Frisk and Jensen, cited above, § 65.
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 43351/12

  OOO TAMBOV-INFORM v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and judicial practice, in particular relating to section 55 of Federal Law no. 51-FZ of 18 May 2005 (the "State Duma Deputies Election Act of 2005"), see Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia (no. 42911/08, §§ 36-51, 21 February 2017).

  Such activity fell within the scope of the right to freedom of expression as protected by the first paragraph of Article 10 and constituted its "exercise" in the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 10 (see Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, §§ 94 and 95, 21 February 2017).

• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 19273/08

  YARTSEVA v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of other relevant domestic law and judicial practice, see Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia (no. 42911/08, §§ 36-51, 21 February 2017).

  The Court observes that the essential legal aspects of the present case (in particular, in relation to the applicant's convictions under Articles 5.10 and 5.11 of the CAO in relation to those articles) are similar to those already examined by the Court in Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia (no. 42911/08, 21 February 2017).

• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44561/11

  RID NOVAYA GAZETA AND ZAO NOVAYA GAZETA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that there is a possibility under Article 41 of the Convention that a commercial company may be awarded monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV; see also Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, §§ 140-41, 21 February 2017, and OOO Regnum v. Russia, no. 22649/08, § 91, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  no 10810/15 §§ 8-30, 31 January 2017, and Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, §§ 29-32, 21 February 2017.
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 16224/05

  [ENG]

  Among these, account should be taken of the company's reputation, uncertainty in decision-planning, disruption in the management of the company (for which there is no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, § 140, 21 February 2017).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12

  ASSOTSIATSIYA NGO GOLOS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 20002/13

  ASSOCIAZIONE POLITICA NAZIONALE LISTA MARCO PANNELLA AND RADICALI ITALIANI v. …
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 27227/17

  OSSEWAARDE v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 33513/13

  KUZMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2023 - 24108/15

  MESTAN c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 44414/12

  ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 31333/07

  DUBROVINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 49351/18 (anhängig)

  DYACHKOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR - 35468/18 (anhängig)

  MOCHALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 29807/23 (anhängig)

  ATRESMEDIA CORPORACION DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACION, S.A. v. SPAIN