Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3)

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  In that connection, it points out that the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  Feldek ./. Slowakei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  The Court reiterates in that regard that 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 Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  The Court emphasises that, in order for Article 8 of the Convention to come into play, an attack on a person's reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and its manner must cause prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012).

• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  These factors, in turn, require consideration of other elements such as the authority of the source (ibid.), whether the newspaper conducted a reasonable amount of research before publication (Prager and Oberschlick, cited above, § 37), whether the newspaper presented the story in a reasonably balanced manner (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, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  A politician acting in his public capacity inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see, among other authorities, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 56, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 510/04

  TØNSBERGS BLAD AS AND HAUKOM v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  The Court will further consider the newspaper article as a whole and have particular regard to the words used in the disputed parts of it, the context in which they were published and the manner in which it was prepared (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 90, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  The courts must therefore take into account the likely impact of their rulings, not only on the individual cases before them but also on the media in general (see Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, § 55, 19 April 2011, and Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 5126/05, § 48, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 51744/99

  KWIECIEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the balancing exercise carried out by the domestic courts did not take sufficiently into account all the standards established in the Court's case-law under Article 10 of the Convention (compare and contrast, Keller v. Hungary (dec.), cited above, and Kwiecień v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 52, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 17446/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  As for the word "promenade", here ironically employed, the Court reiterates that the use of sarcasm and irony is perfectly compatible with the exercise of a journalist's freedom of expression (see Smolorz v. Poland, no. 17446/07, § 41, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 22824/04

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 6)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 7972/09

  Having regard to its finding that the statement in question as such could not be considered as damaging to Mr Fedorov's reputation (see paragraph 55 above), the Court considers that the reliance on rumours in the present case was compatible with the exercise of the freedom of expression (cf. Flux v. Moldova (no. 6), no. 22824/04, §§ 27-34, 29 July 2008).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27570/03

  Nowaja Gaseta Woronesch ./. Rußland
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 14087/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 23510/02

  VITRENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  OOO 'VESTI' AND UKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 17550/03

  ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD & CONSTANTINIDES v. CYPRUS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  In that context it will also take into account the general principles concerning the margin of appreciation and balancing the right to freedom of expression against the right to respect for private life (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 85-95, 7 February 2012; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France ([GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 90-93, ECHR 2015 (extracts)); and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no.17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017) as well as the long-established principle that the requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment - which is not susceptible of proof - is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself (see, among many others, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103, Morice, cited above, § 126; and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 41, 2 October 2018).
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 23236/22

  BAENA SALAMANCA v. SPAIN

  The Court considered the impugned publications as a whole and had particular regard to the words used in its disputed parts, the context in which they were published and the manner in which it was prepared (see, among others, Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 49, 2 October 2018; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV, and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 90, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 08.01.2026 - 7557/23

  TAFZI EL HADRI AND EL IDRISSI MOUCH v. SPAIN

  In several cases the Court considered the disputed publications as a whole and had particular regard to the words used in the disputed parts, the context in which they were published and the manner in which it was prepared (see, among others, in the context of Article 10, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV; Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 49, 2 October 2018; and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 90, ECHR 2007-III).

• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 11971/10

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND IZMAYLOV v. RUSSIA

  The two first-instance courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI, and Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether they should be seen in the context of Ramzan Kadyrov's position as a political public figure open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 38, ECHR 2001-II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see, with further references, Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 48, 8 October 2019)).
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 35023/13

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The domestic courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether such statements should be seen in the context of the claimants' position as public figures required to display a greater degree of tolerance (see Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 48, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 83662/17

  NOVAYA GAZETA AND ANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  When examining the defamation claims against the applicants brought by Mr Igor Sechin, a public figure in his capacity of the CEO of Rosneft, the domestic courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether such statements should be seen in the context of the claimant's position as a public figure required to display a greater degree of tolerance (see Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the article had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether it had been based on open-source information already available to the public.
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 74389/10

  PRONYAKIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  The domestic courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of truth rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 96, ECHR 2004-XI, and Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 50, 2 June 2020), or whether such statements should be seen in the context of the claimants' position as public figures open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 38, ECHR 2001-II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV, and Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298, and Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 48, 8 October 2019)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 44414/12

  ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA

  In view of the limited scope of their reasoning in this respect, the Court is not persuaded by their approach (see Monica Macovei v. Romania, no. 53028/14, § 88, 28 July 2020) as the first-instance court omitted to consider certain essential elements: it disregarded the fact that the pre-investigation inquiry had been resumed by the date of the delivery of its judgment in the defamation proceedings (see paragraph 16 above) thus failing to base itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019); it did not assess whether it represented a value judgment not susceptible of proof rather than statements of fact (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI); it did not take into account the claimant's position as a chair of an electoral commission (see Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v. Russia, no. 16224/05, § 42, 21 November 2017) or of the applicant's position as a member of the Tambov City Duma and thus an elected representative of the people (see Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, § 15, 7 July 2020); and it did not consider that the interview had touched upon a matter of public interest (see Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 47, 2 October 2018) even though the claimant's conduct in his capacity of the chair of an electoral commission was clearly of legitimate concern to the general public (compare Monica Macovei, cited above, § 86).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 29097/08

  NADTOKA v. RUSSIA

  Nor did the Town Court acknowledge that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual (see, with further references, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, § 46) or consider the subject matter of the impugned article, namely allegations of corruption of the mayor's office, even though there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest (see, with further references, Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3), no. 7972/09, § 64, 2 October 2018).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 81060/12

  FATULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Le juge de paix n'a pas tenu compte de ce que le rôle de « chien de garde'de la presse dans une société démocratique comprend la couverture médiatique d'« histoires'ou de « rumeurs'- émanant de tiers - ou de « l'opinion publique ", qui bénéficie de la protection offerte par l'article 10 de la Convention à condition qu'elle ne soit pas complètement sans fondement (Fedchenko c. Russie (no 3), no 7972/09, § 54, 2 octobre 2018).