Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,26157) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CHOLAKOV v. BULGARIA
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Cholakov v. Bulgaria
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 20147/06
- EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06
- EGMR, 29.06.2016 - 20147/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06
Such statements relating to issues of public concern and therefore amounting to "political expression" require, in principle, a high degree of protection under Article 10 (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 88, ECHR 2005-II). - EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06
The Court has on a number of occasions said that in determining whether an interference with the right to freedom of expression was justified, it has to satisfy itself, inter alia, that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 (see, among other authorities, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, §§ 19 and 24-25, 19 July 2011; Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, §§ 22 and 27, 3 November 2011; and John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta, no. 17320/10, §§ 32 in fine and 40, 22 November 2011); it does not consider that this was the case here. - EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03
Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06
It notes, moreover, that the term "law" in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention must be understood in its substantive sense, not its formal one (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; and Pasko v. Russia, no. 69519/01, § 73, 22 October 2009). - EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 16657/03
A/S DIENA ET OZOLINS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06
The central issue which falls to be determined is thus whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", that is to say whether such interference corresponded to a pressing social need, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and whether the reasons given by the national authorities were relevant and sufficient (see, among others, Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, § 76, 12 July 2007). - EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 11332/04
ZHELYAZKOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 20147/06
The Court recalls that it has already examined the Decree's status in the domestic legal system in its recent case of Zhelyazkov v. Bulgaria (no. 11332/04, § 31, 9 October 2012), where it found that the fact that the Decree had not been adopted by the Parliament did not deprive it of its quality of "law" for the purposes of the Convention.