Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONIUSZEWSKI v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KONIUSZEWSKI v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  The Court must apply the most careful scrutiny when the sanctions imposed by a national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see, among other authorities, Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 88, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 57675/10

  BESTRY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  The nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors which should be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 (see Skałka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 41-42, 27 May 2003; Kwiecień v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 56, 9 January 2007; and Bestry v. Poland, no. 57675/10, § 57, 3 November 2015).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (ibid.), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (see Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (ibid., § 58).

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  By reason of the duties and responsibilities inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  The Government were of the view that a criminal response to an offence of defamation could not, as such be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued, referring to Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France ([GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-IV)).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  Even if the phrase seems harsh, the Court reiterates in this connection that persons taking part in a public debate on a matter of general concern - like the applicant in the present case - are allowed to have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 60, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (ibid.), whether the newspaper had conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 37, Series A no. 313), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (see Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-IV) and whether the newspaper gave the persons defamed the opportunity to defend themselves (ibid., § 58).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  The Court has held that the press should normally be entitled to rely on the content of official reports without having to undertake independent research (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 68 and 72, ECHR 1999-III; Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-V; and Yordanova and Toshev, cited above, § 51, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  By reason of the duties and responsibilities inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III and Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 63, 19 April 2011).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 35105/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 619/12

  The title remains within the acceptable limits as it is closely connected with the factual information provided by the applicant in his article (compare and contrast Kania and Kittel v. Poland, no. 35105/04, § 47, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 66994/12

  ABDULRAHMAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 35030/13

  Petra Reski

  Der Rechtsprechung zufolge muss es Journalisten freistehen, auf der Grundlage von Informationen aus amtlichen Quellen ohne weitere Nachprüfung über Ereignisse zu berichten (siehe Koniuszewski./. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 619/12, Rdnr. 58, 14. Juni 2016, mit Verweisen auf weitere Rechtsprechung).
• LSG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 06.11.2017 - L 4 U 442/17

  Unfallversicherungsrecht; Arbeitsunfall; Auferlegung von Verschuldenskosten; …

  Rn. 53 Das Gericht hat neben den Akten der Beklagten zunächst weitere Gerichtsakten (S 23 KN 30/08 U, S 36 KN 606/10 U, S 36 KN 707/11 U, S 36 KN 757/11 U, S 36 KN 324/12 U, S 36 KN 464/12 U, S 36 KN 619/12 U, S 36 KN 626/12 U, S 36 U 893/15) beigezogen und dem Kläger unter Hinweis auf die ihm aus zahlreichen Vorprozessen bekannten Regelungen eine Frist gemäß § 106a SGG i.V.m. § 153 Abs. 1 SGG zum 15.09.2017 gesetzt (Schreiben vom 31.07.2017, zugestellt am 04.08.2017).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 58400/14

  KASPROWICZ c. POLOGNE

  La Cour a énoncé dans un certain nombre d'affaires dirigées contre la Pologne la pratique à suivre en ce qui concerne les griefs de violation du droit à la liberté d'expression tirés d'une condamnation fondée sur l'article 212 § 2 du code pénal (voir, par exemple, Łozowska c. Pologne, no 62716/09, 13 janvier 2015, Dorota Kania c. Pologne, no 44436/13, 4 octobre 2016, et Koniuszewski c. Pologne, no 619/12, 14 juin 2016).
• EGMR - 4807/22 (anhängig)

  ASSOCIATION GRAUR v. ROMANIA

  If so, was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and "necessary in a democratic society" in terms of Article 10 § 2? In particular, considering the applicant association's role and mission and the domestic courts' classification of its allegations, was the approach adopted by the latter in respect of the required standards and burden of proof, particularly in respect of the prerequisite procedure before the Council, in line with the Court's relevant case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 168, 8 November 2016, Koniuszewski v. Poland, no. 619/12, § 56, 14 June 2016, and Aurelian Oprea v. Romania, no. 12138/08, §§ 66 et seq., 19 January 2016)? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant association's right?.