Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GHIMPU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GHIMPU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 98, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  The Court considers that the impugned statement had limited negative effects on the third applicant and did not cross the threshold of seriousness for an issue to be raised under Article 8 of the Convention (Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 133, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  The Court further recalls that a general requirement for journalists systematically and formally to distance themselves from the content of a quotation that might insult or provoke others or damage their reputation is not reconcilable with the press's role of providing information on current events, opinions and ideas (see, for instance, Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 37, ECHR 2004-II, and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 4), no. 26826/16, § 38, 23 September 2021).

 
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 70434/12

  SOUSA GOUCHA v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  Where the complaint raised before the Court is that rights protected under Article 8 have been breached as a consequence of the exercise by others of their right to freedom of expression, due regard should be had, when applying Article 8, to the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for instance, Sousa Goucha v. Portugal, no. 70434/12, § 42, 22 March 2016).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 23954/10

  Zur Meinungsfreiheit in Ungarn

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  Admissibility 20. The Court leaves open the issue whether a political party can claim the protection of its reputation under Article 8 of the Convention (see Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 22, 19 July 2011 in respect of protecting the commercial success of a company, while noting the difference between the commercial reputational interests of a company and the reputation of an individual concerning his or her social status).
• EGMR, 23.09.2021 - 26826/16

  RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA (No. 4)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  The Court further recalls that a general requirement for journalists systematically and formally to distance themselves from the content of a quotation that might insult or provoke others or damage their reputation is not reconcilable with the press's role of providing information on current events, opinions and ideas (see, for instance, Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 37, ECHR 2004-II, and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 4), no. 26826/16, § 38, 23 September 2021).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02

  KOMMERSANT MOLDOVY v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 24791/14

  The Court considers that the balancing between the two competing rights which the domestic courts carried out in a rather general manner did not remedy the absence of any analysis in respect of specific statements in the film, notably concerning the most serious accusations of crimes allegedly committed by the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, no. 41827/02, §§ 36-38, 9 January 2007, where a violation of Article 10 was found on account of the failure of the domestic courts to specify which elements of the applicant's articles were problematic).

• EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 35960/14

  MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court cannot but note that the reasoning provided by the domestic courts in the present case is not compliant with the general principles established under its case-law (see paragraph 15 above) and does not demonstrate that the courts duly examined whether the statements made about the applicant had overstepped the permissible bounds of freedom of expression (compare Yayla v. Turkey [Committee], no. 3914/10, § 21, 24 March 2020, and Ghimpu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova [Committee], no. 24791/14, § 34, 1 February 2022).